Israel and USA [Archive] - Page 2

peptoabysmal

4th October 2003, 10:59 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Peptoabysmal
It's hard to talk about politics and peace process when only a couple of hours ago, 18 people got killed and more than 20 were severely injured in Haifa in one of the bloodiest terrorist attacks in the past years.

:( Very hard to feel that we are not at full scale war and should concentrate on defeating the enemy before reconstruction takes place.

Since Israel serves the interests of USA in the area of Middle East one should expect that the american general public has to be in a way brain-washed.

I would extend that to say that everyone on this planet is a bit brain-washed, not just Americans. Unless you have top security clearance and are the one making the decisions, you can only take the information that's handed to you. I could be wrong about this, but I think the penalty for a US journalist who prints an untruth is a bit higher than most of the world, and therefore the information is a bit more dependable. I'm not including editorialists like Rush Limbaugh, etc. in this group, but real journalists.

I disagree with Mycroft on that. Americans generally speaking don't care, they might ignore where Cuba is but when it comes to Israel they know many things. I doubt if there is an American who ignores the name Ariel Sharon.

I'd be willing to make a little wager with you that more Americans know the name Fidel Castro than Ariel Sharon. Cuba still scares the crap out of us.

Ariel Sharon, the man who sees the American President whenever he wishes.

Yeah, Bush keeps refusing to see me, too :D

On the other hand, when it comes to Information and Media, things are not they way they used to be 20 years ago. People have Internet access and Arabs have learned better English. Have you visited Al-Jazeera's site? Excellent News source!

Please tell me you don't believe everything you read on the internet. We have people here who believe that the Earth is flat and the moon landing was staged in a Hollywood studio, why wouldn't they believe Al-Jazeera?

So, people do have access to the other side and that's why they have started posing questions the 9/11 contrubuted to that too.

It's good to question why all of this has happened.

I have said many times that we are not in the middle 70ies or 80ies and it seems that Israel must make a significant change in its policy and only USA can push sucessfully towards that direction.

Again, really hard for us to criticize Israel when every day the papers carry another story of Palestinian terrorism. If we had to put up with that for as long as they have, a great portion of the Arab world would be in cinders waiting for the radiation to cool enough to go in and drill for oil again.

Mycroft while I appreciate your comments about my moral beliefs you forgot to add your comment regarding my idea that the Jews of the States must speak-up on behalf of the Arabs of the States when it comes to the violations of their rights.

I know this was directed at Mycroft, but;
Other than Arabs being detained who were engaged in questionable activities, I really haven't seen any evidence of Arabs being treated badly here. I honestly expected to see some mosques burned or Arabs randomly tortured after 9/11. I've seen more violence against synagogues than against any other hate crimes in the states.

JAR

4th October 2003, 11:18 PM

I support Israel's policy of removing Yasser Arafat. To see where I said this in an earlier thread take this link: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21280&highlight=Arafat

I think the situation in Israel is another example of the left sympathizing with the wrong group of people. The left hears that one group of people is worse off than another and they immediately assume that it's because another group is persecuting them instead of making sure that the worse off group isn't worse off because of it's own bad deeds.

Cleon

5th October 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

I know this was directed at Mycroft, but;
Other than Arabs being detained who were engaged in questionable activities, I really haven't seen any evidence of Arabs being treated badly here. I honestly expected to see some mosques burned or Arabs randomly tortured after 9/11. I've seen more violence against synagogues than against any other hate crimes in the states.

It happens more than you think; it just doesn't get a lot of media attention. Just a month and a half ago or so, someone torched a mosque in Savannah, GA. It got a little bit of notice here in Atlanta, but not much. They still don't know who did it.

Evolver

5th October 2003, 08:18 AM

From an email I received from my cousin

Crash Course on the Arab Israeli Conflict Everyone, Here are some
conveniently overlooked facts in the current Middle East situation.
These were compiled by a Christian university professor.

HERE'S THE BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY....Takes just 1.5
minutes to read!!!! It makes sense and it's not slanted. Jew and
non-Jew,it doesn't matter.

Thank You.

1. Nationhood and Jerusalem Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two
thousand years before the rise of Islam.

2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part
Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the
modern State of Israel.

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E. the Jews have had dominion
over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the
land for the past 3,300 years.

4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 C.E. lasted no more
than 22 years.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital.
Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity.
Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make
it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy
Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to
Jerusalem.

8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward
Jerusalem.

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to
leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews.
Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated
to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is
estimated to be the same.

12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into
the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out
of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only
refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated
into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed
into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.

13. The Arab - Israeli Conflict; The Arabs are represented by eight
separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one
Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel
defended itself each time and won.

14. The P.L.O.'s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of
Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land,
autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them with
weapons.

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews
were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim
and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to
people of all faiths.

16. The U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs of the 175 Security Council
resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429
were directed against Israel.

18. The U.N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by
the Jordanians.

19. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated
the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

20. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like
policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the
Western Wall.

These are incredible times. We have to ask what our role should be.
What will we tell our grandchildren we did when there was a turning
point in Jewish destiny, an opportunity to make a difference?

Just wondering what people on both sides of this issue feel about these statements. Are they facts? And if so, why do the anti-Israel folks ignore them?

Cleon

5th October 2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Evolver

Just wondering what people on both sides of this issue feel about these statements. Are they facts? And if so, why do the anti-Israel folks ignore them?

Fact, mixed with myth, mixed with conjecture.

1. Nationhood and Jerusalem Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two
thousand years before the rise of Islam.

Only if you accept the Torah (Bible to Christians) as historical fact. This is referring to the Israel of King David--to this day, archaeologists and historians debate whether David existed, or if he was just a hilltop chieftain, or what.

2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part
Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the
modern State of Israel.

Weird, considering the Palestine Liberation Organization was formed three years prior to that. This is pure BS.

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E. the Jews have had dominion
over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the
land for the past 3,300 years.

Dominion? Continuous? Hardly. Continuous presence, yes, but not always a significant one. In 1900, Jews were a tiny minority in Palestine.

http://www.jewishgen.org/databases/GivenNames/dbdespop.htm

4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 C.E. lasted no more
than 22 years.

Kinda irrelevant, kinda conjecture. I don't think anyone, except the hard-core Islamicists, argue that it should be exclusively an Arab state.

Conjecture--the Ottomans ruled Palestine for centuries. No, not technically "Arab," but definitely Muslim.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital.
Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity.
Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make
it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy
Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

Denying the importance of Jerusalem to Islam is, well, stupid. Jerusalem is mentioned at length in the Hadith.

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to
Jerusalem.

Actually, the rock (as in the "dome of the rock") is where, according to Islam, Muhammed ascended into Heaven.

8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward
Jerusalem.

Only if they happen to be between Jerusalem and Makkah. :) Jews pray facing east, towards Jerusalem; Muslims pray facing east, towards Makkah.

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to
leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews.
Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

Often said, less often substantiated.

http://www.al-awda.org/faqsonrefugees/
http://www.madre.org/country_pal_roreturn.html
Benny Morris' book REALLY exposes the "Arabs told them to leave" myth: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521338891/102-4941342-8360962?v=glance http://www.ajds.org.au/mendes.htm

Denying the human rights abuses of the Irgun, Stern Gang, and Haganah is historical revisionism at its worst.

10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands.

In some cases, yes. In other cases, no. In some cases, they left to join the Israeli experiment, but the Zionists claimed they were expelled.

In any event, it's irrelevant to the issue.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated
to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is
estimated to be the same.

Not sure where the "author" got the numbers--every estimate I've seen shows expelled Palestinians between 700,000 and 900,000.

12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into
the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out
of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only
refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated
into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed
into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.

Irrespective of the definition of "their own peoples' lands," yeah.

Sure...But it makes you wonder why the Only Democracy in the Middle East (tm) won't absorb/integrate the people who were kicked out of their own homes. To this day you can see the remains of empty Palestinian villages, razed in 1948.

13. The Arab - Israeli Conflict; The Arabs are represented by eight
separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one
Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel
defended itself each time and won.

Ah, yes, The Arabs. I love that one.

Suppose your last name is Smith, and mine is, I dunno, Weedergreezer. If I took over your home, kicked you out, and then whined "but Smiths own homes all over the place! No Weedergreezers do!" would you cheerfully accept your displacement, or would you haul my ass into court? I mean, why haven't you been absorbed by your brother Smiths?

14. The P.L.O.'s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of
Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land,
autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them with
weapons.

Lie. The PLO's charter never called for the "destruction of the State of Israel." In fact, the only ones who use the phrase "destruction of the State of Israel" are Zionists who are attributing it to Palestinians. It's a myth, used for propoganda. Some years back, when the "peace process" started, US papers made a big thing of the PLO removing the call for the "destruction of the State of Israel" from their charter. It was a lie--the PLO never called for it. The offending phrase, that Israel found so objectionable, referred to the 1948 partition of Palestine by the British as "illegal" because it didn't take into account the wishes of the Palestinians (of ALL religions).

Complete text, as adopted in 1968:

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/plocha~1.htm

I love those anti-semitic statements like "The Palestinian people believe in the principles of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and in the right of all peoples to exercise them."

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews
were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim
and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to
people of all faiths.

This is a half-truth. In 1948, historic sites in Palestine were in crappy shape. Neither the Ottomans nor the British had any restoration programs. The Jordanians never developed any, either; of course, they didn't have the benefit of millions of western dollars to do so.

But hey, I don't justify the Jordanians' occupation of the WB. They had no right to do so. (Of course, at the same time, the Palestinians in the WB were given Jordanian citizenship, the right to vote, etc., which Israel's occupation denies them.) But one occupation does not justify another.

16. The U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs of the 175 Security Council
resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429
were directed against Israel.

Not sure of the numbers, but Israel does and has violated international law, so I'm not surprised.

18. The U.N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by
the Jordanians.

19. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated
the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

Oh, bull feathers. There was no systematic desecration of the cemetary. They sure as hell didn't restore it, no, but again, after the Ottomans and the British ALL historical sites were in pretty poor shape.

20. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like
policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the
Western Wall.

You know, I've never seen any substantiation of this claim. I know Israel and Jordan have always had a tug-of-war over the Mount, with each side claiming the other wants to erase all vestiges of their religion. It's possible, I'm sure, but I've never seen any substantiation, just the allegation.

CapelDodger

5th October 2003, 09:53 AM

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem.
As described in the OT (which is probably a good source at this point) David's crew captured Jerusalem. (This was way after the 1312 BCE; more like 1000 BCE.) From there he established himself as primus inter pares of an alliance of tribes (not exclusively Hebrew) from Gaza to Beirut (more or less), and was also allied with Hiram of Tyre the Phoenician capo of the area. Between them they dominated the Med to Red Sea trade route, and Solomon (David's successor) became enormously rich (as did Hiram, or possibly the Hirams). The dominion broke up with the death of Solomon - a dynasty of two. Judea had a degeree of independence under the Egyptians and then the Assyrians. The Babylonians did away with that completely. Babylonian rule was followed by Persian rule, then Greek, then Roman/Greek then various Moslems with a Christian interlude, and the Ottomans ruled since Suleiman the Magnificent in the 16th CE. From 1919 there was League of Nations rule via the Mandate until 1948, then conquest by Zionists (Jerusalem falling in 1967). If memory serves me right.

Evolver

5th October 2003, 10:01 AM

Thanks, Cleon.
I kinda thought the whole list was one-sided and sometimes simplistic.

CapelDodger

5th October 2003, 10:02 AM

13. The Arab - Israeli Conflict; The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.

I like the idea of the Mexicans returning to Texas, kicking Bush off his ranch and telling him "Maryland is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant State - go live there".

The initial assault was, of course, launched by the Nationalist Zionists who were, after all, the invaders. The 1956 attack on Egypt was launched as part of a conspiracy with Britain and France. The 1967 war was launched by Israel, as was the invasion of Lebanon - and we're very likely to see that happening again in the near future.

hammegk

5th October 2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

I like the idea of the Mexicans returning to Texas, kicking Bush off his ranch and telling him "Maryland is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant State - go live there".

So do a lot of Mexicans. Do you wonder why they don't? Perhaps you should counsel them to start suicide bomber attacks on Texas civilians?

You, intellectual sir, are a f*cking idiot. Just my opinion, of course. ;)

CapelDodger

5th October 2003, 10:24 AM

What's with this hammegk character?

hammegk

5th October 2003, 10:26 AM

But you seem to like talking trash.

Care to answer my questions?

Cleopatra

5th October 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

I like the idea of the Mexicans returning to Texas, kicking Bush off his ranch and telling him "Maryland is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant State - go live there".

Yeap! Everything seems so easy and funny from your home in Cardiff...this is what makes the citizens of the Metropolis exceptional; they have the luxury to make jokes about other people's lives especially about people that their ancestors have F*** up with their policy...

BTW do you have room for 7.000.000 people in Wales, it sounds like an ideal place for Jews to live...

JAR

5th October 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

I like the idea of the Mexicans returning to Texas, kicking Bush off his ranch and telling him "Maryland is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant State - go live there".

The initial assault was, of course, launched by the Nationalist Zionists who were, after all, the invaders. The 1956 attack on Egypt was launched as part of a conspiracy with Britain and France. The 1967 war was launched by Israel, as was the invasion of Lebanon - and we're very likely to see that happening again in the near future.
Okay. I'm going to assume that you didn't think much before you said that.

JAR

5th October 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

I like the idea of the Mexicans returning to Texas, kicking Bush off his ranch and telling him "Maryland is a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant State - go live there".
[snip]
Wherever we English go, there's always going to be someone telling us to go somewhere else. If we live in the U.S., the Native American Indians say, "Go back to England", if we live in England, the Welsh and Cornish say, "Go back to Denmark", if we go to Denmark and say to the Danish, "This is our ancestral land", they say, "What the f%ck are you talking about."

CapelDodger

5th October 2003, 03:42 PM

Hi Cleopatra:
Yeap! Everything seems so easy and funny from your home in Cardiff...this is what makes the citizens of the Metropolis exceptional; they have the luxury to make jokes about other people's lives especially about people that their ancestors have F*** up with their policy...
BTW do you have room for 7.000.000 people in Wales, it sounds like an ideal place for Jews to live...
Not so much a joke as an example of reductio ad absurdam. The idea that "transfer" from the lands of their birth and their ancestry would not matter to people becaue they have another place designated as "appropriate to them" is absurd. I will treat such an argument lightly - that says nothing about how important I feel the core subject is. The core subject is disposession. That is something that is entirely unappreciated by someone such as Bush, who is the product of a nation that has never been occupied or experienced foreign invasion of its own territory. Thus he becomes the target.

I bear no responsibility for my ancestors, not do I claim to inherit anything from them - triumphs or tribulations. The past may be the parent of the present, but knowledge of that should lead to solutions now, not continued justification for injustice now because of injustice then. Societies based on vendetta do not prosper. They mey seem terribly romantic, bit they don't prosper.

As to Wales, indeed there are Jews who live in Wales and doubtless many people descended from Jews. The population is about 2.5 million, so it would take about a 3-1 support level after the evictions. (Not sure how the English would take to that, but then again Scotland and Ireland are Celtic so they can always go there. Or Brittany.) Given enough US subsidy it could probably be done.

CapelDodger

5th October 2003, 03:45 PM

from JAR:
Okay. I'm going to assume that you didn't think much before you said that.
Could you give me more details? I appreciate I may have some of the dates wrong.

CapelDodger

5th October 2003, 03:56 PM

from JAR:
if we go to Denmark and say to the Danish, "This is our ancestral land", they say, "What the f%ck are you talking about."
It was more Saxony than Denmark that spawned the invaders subsequently known as the English (a term confusingly derived from another Germanic tribe, the Angles). They actually had a bit of a problem with the Danes. If you go back to Saxony (I'm suggesting a visit as opposed to emigration or reprisal raids) you'll find that you can explain the situation quite easily if you stick to short English words - they're very much like the German. The long words are more likely to be derived from the Norman or Latin/Greek and are best used when communicating with the French. The Welsh and Scots were not so impressed by the Angles (who must have had superlative PR) and refer to the Sassenachs/Saisneg - the Saxons.

a_unique_person

5th October 2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
What's with this hammegk character?

Hammegk is actually Klingon for "Put me on ignore".

hammegk

5th October 2003, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Hammegk is actually Klingon for "Put me on ignore".

And AUP, after 6500 posts here, is even farther out of touch with any reality except his own, than after his first post. After 20 of his posts it was obvious he was either institutionalized, or should be.

And I notice The Dodger is aptly named. Wonder if he/she/it has some interest in www.capel.ac.uk? Their "Balloon Display" program sounds like it would be of interest.

a_unique_person

5th October 2003, 05:10 PM

What was that Hammy, did you say something? I can't seem to read it.

Mycroft

5th October 2003, 08:55 PM

1. Nationhood and Jerusalem Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two
thousand years before the rise of Islam.

True, but in my opinion this doesn’t provide a legal claim as much as it does a very good reason for the early Zionists to have chosen the region over other possibilities. Among the other good reasons being that the region was a dump that nobody else seemed interested in, it took a lot of hard work to make it what it is today.

2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part
Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the
modern State of Israel.

True. Prior to that, the Arabs resisted the label because they associated the word “Palestinian” with “Jew”.

Note to Cleon: “Palestine” in Palestine Liberation Organization refers to the land, not the people.

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E. the Jews have had dominion
over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the
land for the past 3,300 years.

When I read the Bible, I don’t read it for history. I have no reason to doubt this, I haven’t seen objections to it, so I assume it’s true. In any case, it establishes more a cultural connection to the land rather than a legal claim.

4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 C.E. lasted no more
than 22 years.

True, but old news. I agree with Cleon that it seems irrelevant.

To Cleon: The Ottomans ruled over a lot of Muslims, but were they Muslim? I don’t know the answer to that, but would be interested in finding out. In any case, the Ottomans didn’t have a problem with Jewish settlement of the area.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital.
Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity.
Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make
it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

Hmmm…Jewish capital for 3300 years? I’d call that false. It’s important to Jews on a cultural level, but hasn’t been a capital until recently. It’s true that it has never been an Arab or Muslim capital.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy
Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.

True.

Cleon mentions the Hadith. I’m not very familiar with Islam, so I’m not sure of the importance of that. My understanding is that the Hadith is collections of sayings from the Prophet, and are supposed to help interpret the Koran, but I think there are many books to the Hadith and there is some disagreement on what are actual sayings of the Prophet and what is just folk saying falsely attributed to him.

If someone else has a better understanding of Islam and can shed some light on that, I’d welcome that.

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to
Jerusalem.

Cleon: Actually, the rock (as in the "dome of the rock") is where, according to Islam, Muhammed ascended into Heaven.

There is a passage in the Koran that says, “Praise be to Him who took His servant by night from the Al-Haram (sacred Mosque in Mecca) to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, whose environs We did bless…”

The Dome of the Rock is called Al-Aqsa, but in Arabic that translates to something like “the most distant place”. In the time of Mohammed, the Dome of the Rock hadn’t been built yet, so a literal interpretation would have to be that it was some other Mosque that Mohammed traveled to. Still, Arabic tradition is to interpret that passage not to mean a literal Mosque that existed at the time of Mohammed, but to be the most distant place where there were people who worshipped God. That is, Jerusalem, where there were Jews.

8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward
Jerusalem.
I don’t know what to make of that one. Jews pray about Jerusalem, I’ve never heard of them praying towards Jerusalem. Muslims pray towards Mecca.

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to
leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews.
Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

True. It’s actually more complicated than that, but it’s essentially true. Many Arabs left before hostilities broke out, many more left in a panic when Israel declared independence. The invaders really hoped to get some help from the Arabs living in Israel, but some propaganda from the Syrians had the exact opposite effect. There were Jewish leaders trying to get Arabs to stay, and many did. Their descendents are Israeli citizens today.

10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands.

Yes, there were about a half-dozen or so Arabic countries that expelled their Jewish citizens. They left their lands and properties behind. Funny how nobody talks about the Right of Return of these people.

Anyone interested in the subject might also take a look at how the United Nations makes Palestinian refugees different from the other 130 million refugees that were displaced in various conflicts in the 20th century.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated
to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is
estimated to be the same.

Honestly, most good numbers I’ve seem make the Arab numbers a little higher than the Jewish numbers, but the point is essentially correct. There was a population exchange of comparable numbers, only the Arabic nations didn’t take in their refugees.

12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into
the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out
of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only
refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated
into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed
into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.

Yeb, but many of them are more than happy to supply weapons and money to “solve” the problem.

13. The Arab - Israeli Conflict; The Arabs are represented by eight
separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one
Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel
defended itself each time and won.

There are more than 20 Arabic nations.

14. The P.L.O.'s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of
Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land,
autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them with
weapons.

True. They promised to amend their charter in 1993, but haven’t yet.

Cleon: I’ll address this in depth in another post.

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews
were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim
and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to
people of all faiths.

The Western Wall was a garbage dump before Israel took Jerusalem in 1967.

Today, the Dome of the Rock is administered by Muslims. There is some controversy going on right now because they are doing some excavations under the Mosque, and hauling away a truckloads of “trash” that very likely contains remnants of the Second Temple that the Dome of the Rock was built upon. Israelis interested in preserving these relics of tremendous archeological, historical and religious significance have written letters and circulated petitions to get them to stop this, with little effect.

Think of that the next time someone tells you how much of an insult Sharon’s visit was back in 2000.

16. The U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs of the 175 Security Council
resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429
were directed against Israel.

The United Nations is obsessed with Israel. Some (myself included) go so far as to say the United Nations is an anti-Israeli organization, but that’s another thread.

18. The U.N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by
the Jordanians.

19. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated
the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

I don’t know about the cemetery, but the UN often is silent on such things.

20. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like
policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the
Western Wall.

There was one apartheid, and that was in South Africa. Words like apartheid, holocaust, genocide, and comparisons to Nazism in general are inflammatory and most often used out of context. I don’t support such comparisons even when they are on “my side.”

JAR

5th October 2003, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from JAR:

Could you give me more details? I appreciate I may have some of the dates wrong.
I was referring more to the Mexican part.

But I think those people terrorizing Israel with suicide bombings are wasting their time. There's just too many Israelis for them to just pack up their belongings and move away. Being that the Israelis are there to stay, it's about time people stopped lending support to the Palestinian side because that Palestinian regaining of Israel just isn't going to happen and there's no justifiable reason it should happen.

I think it bothers those terrorists that the Israelis have possession of those places with a religious significance because it suggests that Islam is not the true religion.

Cleopatra

6th October 2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Hi Cleopatra:

Not so much a joke as an example of reductio ad absurdam. The idea that "transfer" from the lands of their birth and their ancestry would not matter to people becaue they have another place designated as "appropriate to them" is absurd. I will treat such an argument lightly - that says nothing about how important I feel the core subject is. The core subject is disposession. That is something that is entirely unappreciated by someone such as Bush, who is the product of a nation that has never been occupied or experienced foreign invasion of its own territory. Thus he becomes the target.

Capel Dodger, you have continously failed to show us what else it could have been done considering that Jews didn't have a safe place to stay.

Suggesting that is better to die than becoming something else is a romantic argument but it's the forced islamizations that the Maniots had in mind when they invented this proverb...

Dilettante

6th October 2003, 03:54 AM

Think big here guys.
Transfer is bad, although far from the worst outcome.
There's a much better outcome for everyone.
Victory over the Arab fascists and Islamic supremacists who perpetuate this terror in the first place.

Put an end to the old Arab order. Lift the Iron Veil. Destroy or cut off all the outside sources of funding and weapons for the Palestinian killers.

If Islamic Jihad has training camps in Syria they should all be destroyed, not just one.
How fast could we do this if the USA got in on the act?
Now that Iraq is in our hands we should be able to act much more decisively.

Why shouldn't Palestine be as free as Iraq and Afghanistan?

edited for spellink

a_unique_person

6th October 2003, 04:46 AM

I will nominate this for the language award for best piece of intentional irony.

Dilettante

6th October 2003, 11:18 PM

AUP,

do you have an answer to the question

Why shouldn't Palestine be as free as Iraq and Afghanistan?

a_unique_person

6th October 2003, 11:22 PM

Afghanistan is not free, it is being run by warlords, except in the capital. Iraq is currently in a state of chaos, but may become more orderly. Time will only tell. I read that a mobile phone system is being installed. I think that would bring all the youngsters into line in no time if they thought they would get a mobile phone for obeying the US regime. In fact, a free mobile phone may be even better motivation.

The problem for the US is that it can only have control on the ground of a relatively few hostile countries at any one time. Air and nuclear capacity can blow people up, but not run a country.

CapelDodger

7th October 2003, 05:43 AM

Hi Cleopatra:
Capel Dodger, you have continously failed to show us what else it could have been done considering that Jews didn't have a safe place to stay.
Again I must point out that the Nationalist Zionist Project was launched long before the Holocaust, which was itself a historical aberration requiring a string of unique events to come to pass. The rest of modern history shows no such danger. Anti-semitism has only been reinforced by Jewish Nationalism, and the idea that Isarel is a safe place for Jews is not only untrue now but will remain so for the foreseeable future. Jews are as safe in America, in Britain, in Russia as anybody is. They go to Israel for reasons of zealotry or in the hope of an improved standard of living.

I realise this will spark a list of isolated anti-semitic incidents from some contributors, but the case for an outbreak of Christian anti-semitic pogroms cannot be made.

CapelDodger

7th October 2003, 05:57 AM

1. Nationhood and Jerusalem Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam.

Where does that date come from? And what a ridiculous idea it is that nations existed so long ago. What Islam has to do with the matter is anybody's guess. Perhaps the author thinks that the conflict is about religion, rather than the actuality - one group invading the land of another to take it for themselves.

from Mycroft:
True, but in my opinion this doesn’t provide a legal claim as much as it does a very good reason for the early Zionists to have chosen the region over other possibilities. Among the other good reasons being that the region was a dump that nobody else seemed interested in, it took a lot of hard work to make it what it is today.
The real history of the region is much more interesting. The agricultural areas of the coastal plains have always been highly productive and well-developed in ways shown by experience to be sustainable. It may not have looked that way to incoming Europeans but they were looking at it with a foreign eye. How sustainable the current European-style farming will be we have yet to see, but the prospects for the aquifers don't look terribly good. Of course, even if the region was a dump that doesn't give people the right to evict the inhabitants just because they can. "Nobody else seemed interested in it" - people lived there, and took an interest.

CapelDodger

7th October 2003, 06:05 AM

2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part
Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the
modern State of Israel.

From Mycroft:

True. Prior to that, the Arabs resisted the label because they associated the word “Palestinian” with “Jew”.

Where does this assumption that being associated with Jews is an insult? A term like "Palestinian" was assigned by outsiders. The idea that there is some sort of identity between the people of Gaza and the Jordan Valley simply because they live in the area designated by European Zionists for their Jewish State is nonsense. What they have in common is the latter point - they're all suffering from the same problem. So what does it matter what the term means and when it was first used?

JamesM

7th October 2003, 06:09 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Again I must point out that the Nationalist Zionist Project was launched long before the Holocaust
This, at least, no-one disputes.

The rest of modern history shows no such danger.
So are you willing to concede that in not-so modern history, there was danger towards Jews in Europe, or is it just the case that you do not consider not-so modern history a relevant concern to people living now?

As for modern history, It's only been 60 years since the last attempt to exterminate all Jews in Europe. You appear to base all your conclusions on the past 60 years. Is that really long enough? Once again, let's wheel out the example of German Jews from the 19th century. What's changed such that they would have said the same as you, but they were wrong and you are right?

Anti-semitism has only been reinforced by Jewish Nationalism
Please clarify: are you claiming that Zionism was the direct cause of the Holocaust? No Zionism, no Holocaust?

Jews are as safe in America, in Britain, in Russia as anybody is.
What evidence would be sufficient to change your mind about this? Taking Russia as the example.

this will spark a list of isolated anti-semitic incidents
What is the criteria for them to stop being isolated?

the case for an outbreak of Christian anti-semitic pogroms cannot be made.
At any time in history or just now? Please clarify. Does anti-semitism have to be Christian-motivated? Was that the motivation for 'modern' anti-semitism?

7th October 2003, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Hi Cleopatra:

... the Holocaust, which was itself a historical aberration

I beg to differ. The holocaust was merely a culmination of centuries of murder of Jews in Europe.

CapelDodger

7th October 2003, 06:22 AM

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to
leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews.
Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

from Mycroft:

True. It’s actually more complicated than that, but it’s essentially true. Many Arabs left before hostilities broke out, many more left in a panic when Israel declared independence. The invaders really hoped to get some help from the Arabs living in Israel, but some propaganda from the Syrians had the exact opposite effect. There were Jewish leaders trying to get Arabs to stay, and many did. Their descendents are Israeli citizens today.

Untrue. No Arab leaders had any reason for encouraging Arabs to leave Palestine, nor did they. The Arabs that remained in Israel were those that were able to cling on until October 1949 (there were further massacres and evictions in Galilee after that.) Those remaining have made every effort to be good Israelis, despite the land-laws that dispossesed so many of them. Many were forced to live under military law until the 1970's, which restricted Israeli Arabs but not Israeli Jews. They did finally obtain the right to serve in the Army. A proposed law will restrict their rights to bring their spouses into the country; if any Israeli Arab marries an Arab from Jenin their offspring will not be Israeli citizens. They receive less government funding for education and infrastructure than Israeli Jews, they are poorly represented in government service and overall have a standard of living well below the Israeli average.

They also have to face intolerance from Israeli Jews and Russians, including members of the Cabinet who call for expulsion and terrorist organisations that the government seems unwilling to dismantle.not

7th October 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Ed

I beg to differ. The holocaust was merely a culmination of centuries of murder of Jews in Europe.

I apologize for this post. I really have no intention of getting into another Jew debate. I won't respond because it is pointless. I'd delete it but I don't believe in deleting posts, even ones that might appear trollish:D

CapelDodger

7th October 2003, 06:33 AM

from Mycroft:
Many Arabs left before hostilities broke out, many more left in a panic when Israel declared independence
This implies that the conflict began with the decalration of the State of Israel, but in fact they broke out in November 1947. By the time of the declaration Haifa and Jaffa had already been captured and mostly cleared of Arabs. Deir Yassin was cleared during this period; reports of what happened there are presumably the "Syrian propaganda" mentioned. About half of the refugees were expelled before the State was declared and Arab Armies entered Palestine. The conditions the refugees found themselves in was a great incentive to others not to leave, but there's not a lot you can do when your village is bulldozed.

CapelDodger

7th October 2003, 07:19 AM

from JamesM:
So are you willing to concede that in not-so modern history, there was danger towards Jews in Europe, or is it just the case that you do not consider not-so modern history a relevant concern to people living now?
There's a limit to how much relevance not-so-modern history has to current affairs. Europe need no longer defend against invasions by steppe-land horsemen, for instance, but it was a constant theme for millenia. Looking at Europe as it is now (or America), where lies the threat to Jews? There is certainly a threat in the Muslim world, but that post-dates the Balfour Declaration.

There are common themes in history but they are reflections of such basics as technology change, climatic change, philosophical changes and the logic of power and wealth (how to get it, how to keep it). I just can't see Jewishness/non-Jewishness as being one of those fundamental things.

As for modern history, It's only been 60 years since the last attempt to exterminate all Jews in Europe. You appear to base all your conclusions on the past 60 years. Is that really long enough? Once again, let's wheel out the example of German Jews from the 19th century. What's changed such that they would have said the same as you, but they were wrong and you are right?

Of course no-one can tell the future exactly, but the actual event of the Holocaust required at the least a very restricted set of events and circumstances. From the point of view of 19th CE Germans it was extremely unlikely. It was extremely unlikely. Extremely unlikely things do happen but they're still unlikely.

Ed's idea of "a culmination of centuries of murder of Jews in Europe" begs the question "How come there were any left?" Look what the Crusaders managed in Jeruslam in two days - and they took time off for drunken stupor and had a lot of Muslims and Christians to kill as well. Unless you take the position that non-Jews will always want to kill Jews a return of pogroms is extremely unlikely.
Please clarify: are you claiming that Zionism was the direct cause of the Holocaust? No Zionism, no Holocaust?
I am firmly of the opinion that the Balfour Declaration was a contributor to the advance of anti-semitism in Germany and Austria and thus to the Holocaust.
What evidence would be sufficient to change your mind about this? Taking Russia as the example.

What is the criteria for them to stop being isolated?
Politicians who espouse anti-semitism making serious progress. It's been tried - "Let's go on about the Jews, that's always good" - but it hasn't worked. And it's not as if people aren't watching, or will think anti-semitism unimportant.
At any time in history or just now? Please clarify. Does anti-semitism have to be Christian-motivated? Was that the motivation for 'modern' anti-semitism?
I'm referring to the present, obviously. And modern anti-semitism has very much been shaped by the Vatican. Hitler and the Nazis brought it from Catholic Austria and Bavaria to Germany proper. Catholic Poland was enthusiastic, as were Catholic areas of France. The Italians, being more familiar with the Vatican at close hand, were far less so.

Chaos

7th October 2003, 07:56 AM

I agree that the Catholic church has been an important source of anti-semitism through at least the last thousand years; I don´t know about the time before that, or about Orthodox churches. Some of that stems from the biblical account that "those Jews murdered Jesus".

There has also been a non-religious reason for anti-semitism: money. Christians were forbidden to lend money to others and collect interest for it; Jews were forbidden to become craftsmen, so they probably had little choice than to become money-lenders. Most people that borrowed money from Jews were rather influential: noblemen, kings, rich traders, and so on. Some of them didn´t like the thought of having to pay their debts back, so they fostered anti-semitism among the population, and when their debts became too pressing, they orchestrated a pogrom to kill or drive away their creditors. Of cause, they did not say "kill them because I owe them money", but instead they blamed the jews for any crimes that came to their minds - and, for example, for the plague epidemic of 1350 A.D..
I suppose that after a while all those accusation just stuck in the minds of the people, because they thought "there are so many ugly rumors about jews, there must be something to it." Some of those that borrowed money from jews were bishops and cardinals, so people also heard those accusations in church, and back then people really believed everything priests said.

I can speak only for Germany here, but anti-semitism is no longer this wide-spread among people. There can no longer be some leader who says "All our problems are the Jews´ fault, let´s kill them!", and everybody would do what he says. The only people who voice such opinions are from extreme right-wing parties, Neo-Nazis and similar groups, who, all combined, score about 2-3% at elections. The vast majority of Germans will not tolerate that - not again.
So I really cannot see how Jews would be in danger here in Germany, or anywhere else in Europe.

CapelDodger

7th October 2003, 08:23 AM

Chaos:

I suggest you read Unholy War by David Kertzer (sub-titled The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism to understand what I'm referring to. In essence, the Papacy took a huge blow to its prestige when the French controlled Italy, and was desperate to roll back the anti-clerical and secularist advances made in Europe after the French Revolution. The Vatican wanted a Counter-Reformation, but was effectively powerless so they chose a target they could handle - emancipation of the Jews. The returning Popes pushed the Jews under their control back into the ghettoes they'd been freed from and started a furious amti-semitic propaganda through its publications and offices. This included the blood libel and the Elders of Zion.

Christianity is fundamentally anti-semitic. The cult had to be sold in the Roman world when the Romans had killed the god-figure - so change the story to blame it on the Jews, right from the start. Paul himself (either the instigator of the surviving cult or close to them) had problems with "the Jews" (although there may have been later editing of his letters). But, given that the Jews themselves mostly rejected the cult, that isn't surprising. Jews also had a much better understanding of what "Messiah" signifies, and probably knew the facts about Jesus and his followers, so they had to be ostracised and demonised.

Cleopatra

7th October 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

Again I must point out that the Nationalist Zionist Project was launched long before the Holocaust

Yes but without the Holocaust is very doubtful it would be realized.

The rest of modern history shows no such danger.

If you could warn an"ordinary European" , before the War about the horror of the Holocaust he would reply that you have a sick mind.

History gives me no guarantees about the future.

antisemitism has only been reinforced by Jewish Nationalism

Funny. The same period Jews were declaring their Nationalism, a series of nations, Greece among those swore to similar ideas. Those ideas didn't reinforce any...anti-greekism... the issue was about antisemitism. Only.

When I read such things I feel that I must end the discussion.After all I'd hate to risk our friendship over an issue that we don't consider equally important. For you it's just "this matter" . For me it's more than that.

Cleopatra

7th October 2003, 09:50 AM

I unsubscibe from this thread.

Mycroft

7th October 2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Again I must point out that the Nationalist Zionist Project was launched long before the Holocaust …

Why do you think this is an important point? I hear critics of Israel make this point sometimes, dropping it in like they think it’s going to be a big surprise. Guess what!? Zionism didn’t start with the Holocaust! What does this mean to you that you think it’s important?

Originally posted by CapelDodger
… which was itself a historical aberration requiring a string of unique events to come to pass.

Huh? The only aberration about the Holocaust was the scale and intensity. Racism meets the industrial age, add a touch of fanatic fascism and you have a recipe for genocide. What part of that recipe doesn’t exist in the world today?

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The rest of modern history shows no such danger. Anti-semitism has only been reinforced by Jewish Nationalism…

Funny, other kinds of nationalism don’t inspire racism. How is Jewish nationalism different?

Originally posted by CapelDodger
and the idea that Isarel is a safe place for Jews is not only untrue now but will remain so for the foreseeable future. Jews are as safe in America, in Britain, in Russia as anybody is. They go to Israel for reasons of zealotry or in the hope of an improved standard of living.

How is Israel unsafe? Sure, terrorism is sickening and brutal, but you’re still more likely to die in a car crash than to a terrorist’s bomb. Zealotry and standard of living are not the only reasons for moving to Israel, and if you replace the word “zealotry” with “religious devotion”, they’re not bad reasons.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I realise this will spark a list of isolated anti-semitic incidents from some contributors, but the case for an outbreak of Christian anti-semitic pogroms cannot be made.

I dunno. With all that Jewish nationalism fueling anti-Semitism, anything could happen. :rolleyes:

a_unique_person

7th October 2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Yes but without the Holocaust is very doubtful it would be realized.

Perhaps.

If you could warn an"ordinary European" , before the War about the horror of the Holocaust he would reply that you have a sick mind.

Exactly. Whatever enmity between Jews and Xians, and Protestants and Catholics, and French and Germans, etc, etc, the idea that whole groups such as the gays, communists, jews and gypsies would be targetted for eradication was a sick notion. That is, for the majority of people, the idea of it becoming reality was absurd.

History gives me no guarantees about the future.

There are no guarantees for anyone. We still have a world in which a major power has enough nukes to blow the rest of it up. What guarantees are there that this arsenal will not be misused in the future.

Funny. The same period Jews were declaring their Nationalism, a series of nations, Greece among those swore to similar ideas. Those ideas didn't reinforce any...anti-greekism... the issue was about antisemitism. Only.

For historical reasons, they didn't have a nation. The idea of a Jewish identity, with synagogues, dress, etc, is still respected around the western world.

As for the concept of Nationalism itself, this idea is also falling out of disfavour, due to the number of wars it seems to generate. Look at the fallout from the collapse of Yugoslavia.

When I read such things I feel that I must end the discussion.After all I'd hate to risk our friendship over an issue that we don't consider equally important. For you it's just "this matter" . For me it's more than that.

Since we have not experienced what you have, it cannot be any other way. Intellectual debate cannot make you feel what someone else has experienced.

Mycroft

7th October 2003, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The real history of the region is much more interesting. The agricultural areas of the coastal plains have always been highly productive and well-developed in ways shown by experience to be sustainable.

Not so productive that they were exporting anything.

Originally posted by CapelDodger Of course, even if the region was a dump that doesn't give people the right to evict the inhabitants just because they can. "Nobody else seemed interested in it" - people lived there, and took an interest.

If I move to your country, buy your land to sstart a farm and you move away, have you been evicted?

Suppose I and a few friends move to your country, don't buy your land but drain the swamp next door and turn it into a farm. Ten years later we're doing really well so we make you an offer on your land, you take it and move away. Have you been evicted then?

What if I and a bunch of friends move to your country, buy some land, drain some swamps, and we all get along great for about ten years. Then we start building stuff, schools, roads, factories, etc. and a bunch of your brothers move in because we need the help, they need the work and we pay well. Then a bunch of your cousins decide that we shouldn't have the community we built, and they come in with guns to get rid of us, but we fight them off, and in the fighting your brothers took off because they didn't want to get in the middle of things. Did we evict your brothers?

Mycroft

7th October 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Where does this assumption that being associated with Jews is an insult? A term like "Palestinian" was assigned by outsiders. The idea that there is some sort of identity between the people of Gaza and the Jordan Valley simply because they live in the area designated by European Zionists for their Jewish State is nonsense. What they have in common is the latter point - they're all suffering from the same problem. So what does it matter what the term means and when it was first used?

Exactly. The only thing these people have in common is that they're Arabs disposessed by an Arab war and then rejected and used as pawns by the same Arab nations that started the war.

Cleopatra

7th October 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Since we have not experienced what you have, it cannot be any other way. Intellectual debate cannot make you feel what someone else has experienced.

Poisoning the well.

Don't make it appear like it's personal. Read again what I wrote.

Mycroft.

Most of Capel Dodger's arguments I mean the non-political ones ( especially the stupidity about the fertile Middle East before the establishment of Israel) have been debunked in discussions in the past.

You are losing your time.

Mycroft

7th October 2003, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Most of Capel Dodger's arguments I mean the non-political ones ( especially the stupidity about the fertile Middle East before the establishment of Israel) have been debunked in discussions in the past.

You are losing your time.

If these arguments have already been debunked, what's his motive for putting them forth?

a_unique_person

7th October 2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Not so productive that they were exporting anything.

If I move to your country, buy your land to sstart a farm and you move away, have you been evicted?

Suppose I and a few friends move to your country, don't buy your land but drain the swamp next door and turn it into a farm. Ten years later we're doing really well so we make you an offer on your land, you take it and move away. Have you been evicted then?

What if I and a bunch of friends move to your country, buy some land, drain some swamps, and we all get along great for about ten years. Then we start building stuff, schools, roads, factories, etc. and a bunch of your brothers move in because we need the help, they need the work and we pay well. Then a bunch of your cousins decide that we shouldn't have the community we built, and they come in with guns to get rid of us, but we fight them off, and in the fighting your brothers took off because they didn't want to get in the middle of things. Did we evict your brothers?

The land that was bought could only ever be sold to other Jews. It was bought as part of the process of creating a Zionist State. Your analogy does not hold.

Cleopatra

7th October 2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

If these arguments have already been debunked, what's his motive for putting them forth?

Oh Capel Dodger is a stubborn Welsh that's why he is widely known as "Capel Dodger the Cymric Curse" :)

I don't intend to get back into the discussion I just mentioned it to remind to Capel Dodger the previous discussion where he was quotting an Encyclopaedia of his that described the pre-Israel Middle East as the Garden of Eden...

When I explained to him why his source is not trustworty he agreed.

a_unique_person

7th October 2003, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Poisoning the well.

Don't make it appear like it's personal. Read again what I wrote.

Mycroft.

Most of Capel Dodger's arguments I mean the non-political ones ( especially the stupidity about the fertile Middle East before the establishment of Israel) have been debunked in discussions in the past.

You are losing your time.

In what way was I being disparaging towards you? My recent family has not been forcibly moved from country to country. (My Irish ancestors, however, may have a different story). If you do not want to discuss this matter any further, then all I was saying is that I can understand that.

As to the miracle of Israel. There is much debate as to it's sustainability, both in terms of the pollution it is generating and the water it is consuming. Only time will tell. However, I do agree with Capel, just because you can make your land more productive than I can, (in the short term), is that a reason for you to take it from me?

Cleopatra

7th October 2003, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

In what way was I being disparaging towards you? My recent family has not been forcibly moved from country to country. (My Irish ancestors, however, may have a different story). If you do not want to discuss this matter any further, then all I was saying is that I can understand that.

The reason I don't want to discuss the matter further is not my family's history Unique. If it was for that I wouldn't have exhausted the matter in various discussions. When somebody claims in an discussion that zionism is the source of antisemitism the discussion cannot be continued, it has arrived to a dead-end. Capel Dodger interprets History one way and I do it in a different way, there is nothing else to discuss.

The difference is fundamental and those who have fundamental differences regarding an issue they'd better avoid to discuss it unless they want to end up making comments about each other that don't belong to a discussion forum.

It doesn't worth it Unique and it applies to discussions the two of us have had in the past too. It doesn't worth it. When you discover that you have a fundamental difference with somebody you have two options; one of them is to stop the discussion.

As to the miracle of Israel. There is much debate as to it's sustainability, both in terms of the pollution it is generating and the water it is consuming. Only time will tell. However, I do agree with Capel, just because you can make your land more productive than I can, (in the short term), is that a reason for you to take it from me?

This is not Israel's argument. They didn't take the land to make it more productive. Most part of the land they took was deserted this is the argument, in case you forgot it.

a_unique_person

7th October 2003, 11:13 PM

Most of Australia is deserted. Does that mean that people can come from around the world and just move in?

Mycroft

7th October 2003, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Most of Australia is deserted. Does that mean that people can come from around the world and just move in?

Isn't that what they did? How did your ancestors get there?

a_unique_person

7th October 2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Isn't that what they did? How did your ancestors get there?

They were the good old days, when might was right. Many hope that the principle of national sovereignty will lead to a more civilised world.

Many Australians, such as myself, believe there should at least be a national apology for the events of settlement. However, our conservative Prime Minister, who is a strong defender of Israel, believes there is nothing to apologize for. Indeed, we shouldn't apologize because then we might have to pay some reparations. I think the idea of paying reparations and an apology is the least white Australia owes the original inhabitants.

Mycroft

8th October 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

They were the good old days, when might was right. Many hope that the principle of national sovereignty will lead to a more civilised world.

So now that it's not the old days anymore, I wouldn't be able to move to Australia?

a_unique_person

8th October 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

So now that it's not the old days anymore, I wouldn't be able to move to Australia?

There is a very active immigration scheme. All you have to do is ask, and if you meet the criteria, (rich, skilled, refugee, etc), you can get in. The Australian population, without immigration, would be pretty stable.

a_unique_person

8th October 2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

The reason I don't want to discuss the matter further is not my family's history Unique. If it was for that I wouldn't have exhausted the matter in various discussions. When somebody claims in an discussion that zionism is the source of antisemitism the discussion cannot be continued, it has arrived to a dead-end. Capel Dodger interprets History one way and I do it in a different way, there is nothing else to discuss.

The difference is fundamental and those who have fundamental differences regarding an issue they'd better avoid to discuss it unless they want to end up making comments about each other that don't belong to a discussion forum.

It doesn't worth it Unique and it applies to discussions the two of us have had in the past too. It doesn't worth it. When you discover that you have a fundamental difference with somebody you have two options; one of them is to stop the discussion.

I don't want to argue the actual point here, but I'm just asking if you aren't just putting your fingers in your ears and saying "I'm not listening, I'm not listening". Ignoring the argument does not make it untrue.

Apart from that, I think that Zionism could survive without harming Jews in general, or Zionists. But it has to get out of that mode of thought that means it cannot tell the settlers where to get off, get down to practicalities of survival and forget about grabbing as much land as it can, and being racist about the Arabs. You don't have to look to far to find horrifying stories of racism, humiliation and degradation of Arabs. We have our own resident racists here, who won't here a bad word said about Israel, ever, because that is anti-semitism.

Mycroft

8th October 2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There is a very active immigration scheme. All you have to do is ask, and if you meet the criteria, (rich, skilled, refugee, etc), you can get in. The Australian population, without immigration, would be pretty stable.

So that means that yes, people can come from around the world and just move in.

a_unique_person

8th October 2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

So that means that yes, people can come from around the world and just move in.

You have to ask. And you can't be thinking about forming a new country here.

Mycroft

8th October 2003, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

You have to ask. And you can't be thinking about forming a new country here.

I'm reading this book right now called "Aultneuland". It's a novel written by Theodor Herzl back in 1902 about a hypothetical Jewish state in Palestine.

In the book, the main character visits Palestine at the turn of the century to see what it's like, then comes back twenty years later to see what it's become. The copy I have was a special edition that was printed in 1961 on the 100th aniversary of Herzl's birth and is filled with comparisons of Herzl's vision in his novel to the actual Israel of 1961.

You reminded me of it just now because in the novel, the Jewish settlers don't actually form a state, just a very large community.

It's an interesting read. I recomend it.

a_unique_person

8th October 2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

You reminded me of it just now because in the novel, the Jewish settlers don't actually form a state, just a very large community.

It's an interesting read. I recomend it.

I think it was when the Arabs twigged onto the intentions of the Zionists settling there that they thought they were in trouble. As it turns out, they were right.

Mycroft

8th October 2003, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I think it was when the Arabs twigged onto the intentions of the Zionists settling there that they thought they were in trouble. As it turns out, they were right.

You follow the issue so closely, you must have read about that. Can you tell me about it?

demon

8th October 2003, 11:25 PM

Self hating Jews?

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/documents/Post100503/css/Post100503.htm

Mycroft

9th October 2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by demon
Self hating Jews?

Not self-hating Jews. Self-hating Jew.

Jews against Zionism is an organization of one. His name is Russell Waxman. He posts pictures from a demonstration back in the 80's when Menachem Begin came to Washington and claims it’s a Jewish protest against Zionism. He also quotes Rabinic scholars from a hundred years ago who were against the Zionist movement. He tries real hard to make it seem like he’s the head of a large Jewish movement, when it’s really just him.

If you want to know about actual Jewish anti-Zionists, check out the Neturei Karta. These guys actually show up for pro-Palestinian-Arab rallies.

demon

9th October 2003, 12:13 AM

Thanks for the info.

I note you do consider him a "self hating jew" for his views however. Why is that?

Mycroft

9th October 2003, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by demon
Thanks for the info.

I note you do consider him a "self hating jew" for his views however. Why is that?

I don't know if he's self-hating or not. I don't even know if he's a Jew. I copied the term from you, the emphasis was meant to be on the singular rather than the plural.

CapelDodger

9th October 2003, 08:26 AM

Hi Cleopatra:

I haven't seen any debunking of my description of the state of Palestinian agriculture in the late 19th CE. Nor did I agree that my source was unrealiable. You put forward the example of would-be poets' vanity-publications describing the mystical wonders of Greece while ignoring the poverty and oppression. My source is the National Encyclopedia, a work in 14 large parts consisting of articles by the leading academics of the day, produced as part of the Victorian self-improvement for the common man movement. It describes the rich agriculture of the coastal plains - including the production of bananas which, I would imagine, were exported. It was written by an eye-witness at the time, when nobody had an axe to grind. This explains why I continue to make the point. As for politics, I'll respond to what I get from others; I'd feel a lot better if we didn't have that between us.

CapelDodger

9th October 2003, 08:57 AM

from Mycroft:
Guess what!? Zionism didn’t start with the Holocaust! What does this mean to you that you think it’s important?
I was responding to what I read as implying that Zionism was a response to the Holocaust. Looking back, I see I may have been wrong. Nationalist Zionism was created at a time when the position of Jews in Europe was better (in terms of emancipation) than it had ever been. The founders had bought in to the European idea that without a nation-state you're nothing. And, following the common European practice of the day, they drew lines on a map of the Middle East and called it meaningful.
Huh? The only aberration about the Holocaust was the scale and intensity. Racism meets the industrial age, add a touch of fanatic fascism and you have a recipe for genocide. What part of that recipe doesn’t exist in the world today?
The ingredients you mention led to eugenics in many western countries before and after WW2, but the idea that it would be applied to Jews rather than the handicapped was not inevitable or even a part of rational eugenics thinking. That aspect of the Holocaust arose in one particular place at one particular time. And it was a very particular place and time. What other examples are there?
Funny, other kinds of nationalism don’t inspire racism. How is Jewish nationalism different?
Do you think nationalism in the Balkans didn't cause racism? That when Christian Slavs were redefined as Serbs (Orthodox) and Croats (Catholic), neighbours didn't start treating each other differently? Jews live within other nations and aspire, in the main, to be normal, patriotic nationals. Claiming them as members of another nationality is likely to increase racism - certainly not likely to reduce it.

CapelDodger

9th October 2003, 09:07 AM

from Mycroft:
How is Israel unsafe? Sure, terrorism is sickening and brutal, but you’re still more likely to die in a car crash than to a terrorist’s bomb. Zealotry and standard of living are not the only reasons for moving to Israel, and if you replace the word “zealotry” with “religious devotion”, they’re not bad reasons.
The terrorist danger is, of course, additional to the car-crash danger that is present everywhere, so yes, unsafe. A further degree of danger comes from the threat of further wars with the Arabs and/or from Iran.

As for religious devotion, that's not a good reason for anything. Increasing standard of living - who could blame anybody for that? Countries put up fences and load them with guards to prevent it, of course, but that doesn't make it intrinsically bad.

CapelDodger

9th October 2003, 09:24 AM

from Mycroft:
Suppose I and a few friends move to your country, don't buy your land but drain the swamp next door and turn it into a farm. Ten years later we're doing really well so we make you an offer on your land, you take it and move away. Have you been evicted then?
Ah, the good old Swamps of Palestine. 600,000 Arabs at least were driven out between 1947 and 1949. More have been evicted since. This was done to create a Jewish majority in the area conquered which could then be Jewish and democratic. Not so much a democratic state as a demographic one, as someone once said.

The idea that the land was bought and paid for by hard-working Zionists is rubbish. The Jewish Land Agency did use capital provided by diaspora Jews to buy estates and evict the tenant-farmers. Those tenants may have been there for generations and had customary rights to the land (as long as they paid the rent), but a lawyers' trick and back-handers to the Turkish authorities did for those. Land was improved, of course, with the use of capital and new techniques, but that was going on in non-Nationalist Zionist circles before and after Hertzl et al brought Nationalism into it.

Cleopatra

9th October 2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Hi Cleopatra:

I haven't seen any debunking of my description of the state of Palestinian agriculture in the late 19th CE. Nor did I agree that my source was unrealiable. You put forward the example of would-be poets' vanity-publications describing the mystical wonders of Greece while ignoring the poverty and oppression. My source is the National Encyclopedia, a work in 14 large parts consisting of articles by the leading academics of the day, produced as part of the Victorian self-improvement for the common man movement. It describes the rich agriculture of the coastal plains - including the production of bananas which, I would imagine, were exported. It was written by an eye-witness at the time, when nobody had an axe to grind. This explains why I continue to make the point. As for politics, I'll respond to what I get from others; I'd feel a lot better if we didn't have that between us.

What is "That" you wish we didn't have in between, the Middle Eastern conflict, your Encyclopaedia or your historical interpretations?

I see only two conditions that would allow us not to have "that" between us: the first one is if I agree with you and the second one is if I wasn't born where I have been born.

I'd better not continue.

Let me remind you a couple of things though.

In that discussion Baker brought the testimony of Mark Twain's visit in Palestine in 1867 to which this is how you replied...

Posted by Capel Dodger

I take an infomed view. Let's consider what impresses you. Mark Twain, writer of light fiction, visits the Holy Land to check out the Biblical sites of his Old Testament down-home religion. He finds the Jordan Valley very different from the Mississipi. He fails to take any interest in the local Arabs since his Holy Guidebook concentrates on Jewish matters. Why he would be expected to recognise an arid, pastoral landscape as anything other than wasteland is an open question. Are you sure he could tell an olive tree from scrub? Do you have any reason for thinking so?

Do you have any reason to think that Mark Twain cannot tell a tree from a scrub?

Of course not!

And although you don't explain why you don't consider Twain's testimony inaccurate you continue addressing to Baker:

Your point being? (Apart from inarticulate.) Anybody can form their opinion of the relevance of Mark Twain's comments; you clearly think his opinion is important, I don't. I indicate why. (You also quote me as saying things I don't, but I can see that's an editing problem.) I don't have "... an opinion of ..." etc, I don't give a toss what you think. Nor do I give a toss about what Mark Twain thought of the Jordan Valley, and I don't see why anybody would - except those that see it as useful in spreading their lies.

Then after you quote your encyclopaedia I reminded you that we must approach such accounts with skepticism and this is what you replied:

Cleopatra:

quote:Me:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of replying to the last post of yours Capel Dodger, I will refer you to the English Travellers of the 19th century who came to Greece and described the country as the place of Olympean serenity and the birthplace of God Pan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm aware of the problem, but be assured I read the piece with that in mind. Critical to the point of absurdity, that's me. The encyclopaedia is the National Encyclopaedia : a Dictionary of Universal Knowledge in 14 volumes, sold by subscription for the education of the common man, and is top-notch stuff. You really can't compare it in any way to classical-hack day-trippers churning out vanity publications of their uneventful travels.

Anyway, Pan was born in Greece, in Arcadia, unless I've been sorely misled.

I included the reference to the Israelis because clearly I shouldn't ignore that aspect, but it's not representative. Even the history ignores god-stuff. I'd honestly say this is the best source we've had to date. (Sadly I have but 12 of 14 volumes, and I'm missing the Greek one.)

Of course, the important point remains "Why are these lying bastards lying to us?"

Well, Capel Dodger it seems to me that according to you what makes a source trustworthy is who is the poster who quotes it.

If a source it's quote by you it's a trustworthy source, if a different source is quote by anybody else automatically becomes irrelevant.

I am sorry I can't debate this attitude.

Cleon

9th October 2003, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Mycroft:

I was responding to what I read as implying that Zionism was a response to the Holocaust. Looking back, I see I may have been wrong. Nationalist Zionism was created at a time when the position of Jews in Europe was better (in terms of emancipation) than it had ever been. The founders had bought in to the European idea that without a nation-state you're nothing. And, following the common European practice of the day, they drew lines on a map of the Middle East and called it meaningful.

Well, Zionism as a philosophy originated in the late 1800s. So no, it wasn't a response to the Holocaust; it was, however, a response to all-too-real European anti-semitism that culminated in the Holocaust.

However, there was a change. Before Hitler's rise to power, Zionism was a tiny movement within the Jewish community. It was confined to small, fanatical groups. After the Holocaust, with rival non-Zionist groups like the Bund decimated, the Zionists rose to leadership in the community. This was aided by people's natural desire to get out of Europe (and hence get away from European anti-semitism) and Western Europe's own desires for the Middle East (which meshed nicely with Zionist ideology).

CapelDodger

9th October 2003, 09:34 AM

from Mycroft:
Exactly. The only thing these people have in common is that they're Arabs disposessed by an Arab war and then rejected and used as pawns by the same Arab nations that started the war.
The spin-doctoring that is necessary to explain an influx of people expelling and replacing another is an assault on the incomers is stunning. The myth-making and tissue-paper logic necessary knows no bounds. Here we have, for instance, the perfidy of communities not welcoming a flood of destitue people with whom they have no connection. The cause of that destitution is, of course, a matter for a different discussion, involving Germans. (And occasionally the Great Invisible Odourless One.) There's nothing wrong with expelling them (hey, it was a land without a people anyway) but not taking them in? Terrible.

CapelDodger

9th October 2003, 09:51 AM

from Cleon:
Well, Zionism as a philosophy originated in the late 1800s. So no, it wasn't a response to the Holocaust; it was, however, a response to all-too-real European anti-semitism that culminated in the Holocaust.
As you have probably divined by now, I think the extent and danger of anti-semitism in 19th CE Europe is exaggerated. Consider how old many of the communities destroyed in the Holocaust were. Consider also the extent of political emancipation, and the status of Jews in economics and academia. No doubt there were difficulties in joining certain clubs and such things, but that's snobbery. The idea "He's a Jew so I want to kill him" is of a completely different order. Given the rise of modern science and the undeveloped philosophical reaction to it, eugenics can be realistically regarded as inevitable. Genocide directed so particularly against Jews was not.
Before Hitler's rise to power, Zionism was a tiny movement within the Jewish community
Nationalist Zionism was also condemned, not just rejected, by many because they felt it created a danger for Jews - and I agree with them.

CapelDodger

9th October 2003, 10:15 AM

(edited to remove duplicate posting. I've been having some trouble staying connected.)

Cleopatra

9th October 2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

As you have probably divined by now, I think the extent and danger of anti-semitism in 19th CE Europe is exaggerated. Consider how old many of the communities destroyed in the Holocaust were. Consider also the extent of political emancipation, and the status of Jews in economics and academia. No doubt there were difficulties in joining certain clubs and such things, but that's snobbery. The idea "He's a Jew so I want to kill him" is of a completely different order. Given the rise of modern science and the undeveloped philosophical reaction to it, eugenics can be realistically regarded as inevitable. Genocide directed so particularly against Jews was not.
[/B]

Let's see what do we have until now:

1.Zionism is the source of antisemitism.

2. Antisemitism in 19th ce is exaggerated is was just a form of snobbery.

I think that we must stop call antisemitism racism you are right, let's call it snobbery instead.

Amazing what spin doctoring is necessary to justify prejudice...

Cleopatra

9th October 2003, 10:25 AM

From today, I change my vocabulary.

I will call antisemitism, snobbery.

Cleon

9th October 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Cleon:

As you have probably divined by now, I think the extent and danger of anti-semitism in 19th CE Europe is exaggerated. Consider how old many of the communities destroyed in the Holocaust were. Consider also the extent of political emancipation, and the status of Jews in economics and academia. No doubt there were difficulties in joining certain clubs and such things, but that's snobbery. The idea "He's a Jew so I want to kill him" is of a completely different order. Given the rise of modern science and the undeveloped philosophical response to it, eugenics can be realistically regarded as inevitable. Genocide directed so particularly against Jews was not.

I think you're partially right and partially off. Jews who had largely assimilated and lived in the cities didn't have as hard a time of it as those who lived in actual Jewish villages and physical communities. Many of the secular Jews lived amongst Christians and didn't have trouble getting into academia or other middle-class jobs/lifestyles. The anti-semitism they usually faced was more of the "snobbish" variety.

A lot of the real, virulent anti-semitism--and yes, there was plenty of it--was A) in the rural areas, where people as a whole were less educated and B) directed more towards Jews who lived in Jewish villages, came from an easily identifiable tradition such as orthodoxy or Chassidim.

This is where violent anti-semitism comes from, not the "snobbish" or "fashionable" variety. It came about as a distrust of people who are different; "that guy over there, he wears his hair in curls, wears funny clothes, and speaks a different language." It was also fed by religious anti-semitism; the Catholic Church promoted anti-semitism vehemently until Vatican II. Martin Luther was a virulent Jew-hater.

Of course, the Tsars, who ruled much of Eastern Europe as well as Russia, had their own brand of anti-Semitism--which did include actual violence, expulsion, and slaughter.

So in short, yes, while more assimilated Jews had an easier time of it in the cities, Jews who lived in the countryside faced violent hatred from their neighbors.

Nationalist Zionism was also condemned, not just rejected, by many because they felt it created a danger for Jews - and I agree with them.

Well, there were three main groups who opposed Zionism; Orthodox and Chassidim who opposed it for religious reasons, assimilated, secular Jews who thought it was crazy religious fundamentalism, and socialist Jews who opposed it for political reasons (including the one above).

a_unique_person

9th October 2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Let's see what do we have until now:

1.Zionism is the source of antisemitism.

2. Antisemitism in 19th ce is exaggerated is was just a form of snobbery.

I think that we must stop call antisemitism racism you are right, let's call it snobbery instead.

Amazing what spin doctoring is necessary to justify prejudice...

I think you are creating strawmen. Anti-semitism preceeded Zionism, obviously. Zionism was a reaction to anti-semitism. That does not, however, mean that modern Zionism cannot make anti-semitism worse, if that Zionism acts in certain ways.

For example, the Zionism that creates settlements in the occupied territories does seem to make anti-semitism worse. The Zionism that create the current state of Israel also inflamed anti-semitism. However, I believe that, with good will on both sides, the states of Israel and Palestine can, eventually, live of good terms.

Mycroft

9th October 2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
For example, the Zionism that creates settlements in the occupied territories does seem to make anti-semitism worse. The Zionism that create the current state of Israel also inflamed anti-semitism. However, I believe that, with good will on both sides, the states of Israel and Palestine can, eventually, live of good terms.

Zionism is nothing more than Israeli patriotism. Nobody hates an Englishman for supporting England or a German for supporting Germany, why should anyone hate a Jew for supporting Israel? If someone finds in that a reason to hate Jews, then they were anti-Semites anyway. Without that excuse, they would find another.

I am a United States citizen and a patriot. I love and support my country. That love and support does not mean that I support every policy of my country. Because I love my country, I often criticize her policies because I want to see her even better. I do not criticize my nation’s policies among people who hate the United States. When I criticize my nation’s policies, it is among other United States citizens who also love our country, and also want to improve her. It would be a mistake to equate my patriotism with support for every unpopular or controversial policy of my government.

In the exact same way, it is a mistake to equate Zionism with support of every unpopular or controversial policy of the Israeli government. There is no “the Zionism” that creates settlements anywhere. Settlements are created by settlers and they may or may not be endorsed by the Israeli government, if you disagree with these policies, by all means criticize them, just don’t equate them with Israeli patriotism.

a_unique_person

9th October 2003, 09:44 PM

Zionism didn't have a country, the idea was to create a country to solve the problem of persecution.

Unfortunately for those who actually lived in the place chosen to create this country, their own needs were completely disregarded. To this day, they are referred to as 'cockroaches' and worse, treated like "ni**rs". Their entire existence and rights to their land have been denied.

I am quite happy to criticise my countries' faults. I have already done so several times here. I think my Prime Minister is a slimy, lying toad.

Mycroft

9th October 2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger Nationalist Zionism was also condemned, not just rejected, by many because they felt it created a danger for Jews - and I agree with them.

And before the civil rights movement in the United States, many blacks thought they should ride in the back of the bus, only drink from the coloured drinking fountain, and should not try to use the white only public swimming pool, restraunt or hotel. They felt that black people should stay with black people because they feared white hatred and violence.

And they were right.

The civil rights movement in the United States did cause violence. There were killings, lynchings, and rioting. Building were burned, churches were bombed. Many people died. A lot of hate and violence was caused by those black people who wanted equality, wanted equal education and equal access to employment. Who wanted the same rights and opportunities that white people had.

I agree with you, CapelDodger. Anytime an underclass group of people wants to improve themselves, anytime someone wants to do something that could change society; that can cause violence and inflame hatred.

Mycroft

9th October 2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Zionism didn't have a country, the idea was to create a country to solve the problem of persecution.

Back in 1880, yes. I'm speaking of today.

Originally posted by a_unique_person Unfortunately for those who actually lived in the place chosen to create this country, their own needs were completely disregarded. To this day, they are referred to as 'cockroaches' and worse, treated like "ni**rs". Their entire existence and rights to their land have been denied.

Nobodys rights were disregarded. The origional settlers got along fine with the natives. It's unfortunate that the turmoil of two world wars and the mismanagement of the British led to such chaos.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I am quite happy to critisize my countries faults. I have already done so several times here. I think my Prime Minister is a slimy, lying toad.

Do you love your country? Would it be correct for someone to equate your love of your country with support for your Prime Minister?

Mycroft

9th October 2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Ah, the good old Swamps of Palestine. 600,000 Arabs at least were driven out between 1947 and 1949. More have been evicted since. This was done to create a Jewish majority in the area conquered which could then be Jewish and democratic. Not so much a democratic state as a demographic one, as someone once said.

Uh-huh. And about 85% of those Arabs had moved into the region since the turn of the century. They moved in to get work, the Zionists were building things. They moved in during WWI. The British encouraged more to move in during WWII. Ancestral home going back thousands of years?

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The idea that the land was bought and paid for by hard-working Zionists is rubbish. The Jewish Land Agency did use capital provided by diaspora Jews to buy estates and evict the tenant-farmers. Those tenants may have been there for generations and had customary rights to the land (as long as they paid the rent), but a lawyers' trick and back-handers to the Turkish authorities did for those. Land was improved, of course, with the use of capital and new techniques, but that was going on in non-Nationalist Zionist circles before and after Hertzl et al brought Nationalism into it.

You only affirm my argument. You phrase it in a negative way, but the facts are clear.

If I buy a rental home and evict the tenant because I want to live there, isn’t that my right? Is that a lawyer’s trick? Is that being back-handed? Christians and Muslims do it all the time, is it only a problem when Jews do it?

Doesn’t a renter know that what he rents may not always be available to rent?

Mycroft

9th October 2003, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The terrorist danger is, of course, additional to the car-crash danger that is present everywhere, so yes, unsafe. A further degree of danger comes from the threat of further wars with the Arabs and/or from Iran.

Yet israel has made peace with Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If they can make peace with Syria, then they can have peace with Lebanon too. It's achingly slow, but there is progress.

And there can be war anywhere. Even the United States.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
As for religious devotion, that's not a good reason for anything.

How very interesting. I can see why someone who is anti-religion is also anti-Jew.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Increasing standard of living - who could blame anybody for that? Countries put up fences and load them with guards to prevent it, of course, but that doesn't make it intrinsically bad.

I don't know of any country that is building a wall to prevent anyone from increasing their standard of living. I know Israel is building a wall to prevent terrorism.

I know of countries that sponsor terrorism to prevent other countries from increasing their standard of living.

a_unique_person

9th October 2003, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Uh-huh. And about 85% of those Arabs had moved into the region since the turn of the century. They moved in to get work, the Zionists were building things. They moved in during WWI. The British encouraged more to move in during WWII. Ancestral home going back thousands of years?

Fantasy. The number of Jews in 1914 was about 90,000. The number of Arabs about 500,000. If 80% of them turned up to get work, the that was an influx of 400,000 to work for the Jewish settlers. It just doesn't add up.

a_unique_person

9th October 2003, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

I don't know of any country that is building a wall to prevent anyone from increasing their standard of living. I know Israel is building a wall to prevent terrorism.

Rubbish, it is to create a modern day concentration camp. The wall is not a dividing wall, it is an encircling wall.

Mycroft

9th October 2003, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The ingredients you mention led to eugenics in many western countries before and after WW2, but the idea that it would be applied to Jews rather than the handicapped was not inevitable or even a part of rational eugenics thinking. That aspect of the Holocaust arose in one particular place at one particular time. And it was a very particular place and time. What other examples are there?

Eugenics and genocide are not the same things.

I’m curious. How do you distinguish rational eugenics thinking from irrational eugenics thinking?

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Do you think nationalism in the Balkans didn't cause racism? That when Christian Slavs were redefined as Serbs (Orthodox) and Croats (Catholic), neighbours didn't start treating each other differently? Jews live within other nations and aspire, in the main, to be normal, patriotic nationals. Claiming them as members of another nationality is likely to increase racism - certainly not likely to reduce it.

Did nationalism cause racism or did racism cause nationalism? Is this the only other nationalism we are allowed to look at? Or can we look at some of the other 140 nationalisms around the globe?

Mycroft

9th October 2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Fantasy. The number of Jews in 1914 was about 90,000. The number of Arabs about 500,000. If 80% of them turned up to get work, the that was an influx of 400,000 to work for the Jewish settlers. It just doesn't add up.

1914 is 14 years after the turn of the century.

Though you are partly right. I should have said since 1880.

Mycroft

9th October 2003, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Rubbish, it is to create a modern day concentration camp. The wall is not a dividing wall, it is an encircling wall.

If the terrorism would stop, there would be no need for a wall.

a_unique_person

9th October 2003, 10:51 PM

There were about 24,000 Jews at 1880. How many Palestinians do you believe there were then?

Mycroft

10th October 2003, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There were about 24,000 Jews at 1880. How many Palestinians do you believe there were then?

Alan Dershowitz just wrote a book about it. Why don't you go and read it?

Oh, I forgot. You only read books that are critical of Jews. The other kind is not so interesting.

E.J.Armstrong

10th October 2003, 07:38 PM

originally posted by JamesM
I know I said I'd let you have the last word, but I want to take the opportunity to apologise unreservedly for the insulting tone of my posts.[/I]
Thank you. If my words have likewise been interpreted I apologise in a similar fashion.

While I'm here, I would also like to address two points from your last post about my claims, hopefully in a non-insulting manner. First, I am making no claims about your posts. I am expressing my opinion based on my reading of those posts. The evidence for my opinion comes from the posts themselves, so it would be superfluous merely to repeat them back to you.
That was not my intention but see above for response.

Second, I am indeed claiming that you have compared yourself with Randi. To back that up, here are some quotes from yourself:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(interestingly, psychics don't like simple questions of the type James Randi likes to ask).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears that merely asking questions is now a tirade. Sort of like the response psychic investigators have to James Randi when he asks them about their claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
when you make a claim you may be asked to justify the claim in exactly the same way that James Randi asks mediums, psychics and clairvoyants to justify their claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On all three occasions, you used this to illustrate a situation in which you were asking a question of another poster or asking them to justify a claim. It is quite obvious whether you are in the James Randi role or the psychic role. It seems not unreasonable to conclude that you compare yourself with Randi for the purposes of the analogy. If that is erroneous and you can provide another interpretation, I will again apologise.
, In using those words I had no intention of in any way comparing myself to James Randi personally but I did mean to refer to his methodology. I admire the man and his methods, which are very successful in showing to others that mediums and other assorted quacks will not justify their claims. As such, I believe it is open to anybody to quote the methods of James Randi when talking about unjustified claims.

Let me try an analogy, for the sake of the clarity that was clearly missing from the original. If you commit a crime (let me hasten to add here, lest there be any further misunderstanding, that I do not consider your post to be a crime) and I comment that Jesus would forgive have forgiven you for it, does that mean I am comparing myself to Jesus? As a non-believer I am merely using what I know about the published works of Jesus (namely the Bible, of whatever version you wish) to indicate what he might have said - not for the purposes of comparing myself with him. I differentiate between the man and his methods. It was in that spirit that I made the remarks about James Randi. You undoubtedly took them to be more than I intended and as such my communication did not achieve its objective and should have been written more accurately for which my apologies to all for any unwintended implications.

a_unique_person

10th October 2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Alan Dershowitz just wrote a book about it. Why don't you go and read it?

Oh, I forgot. You only read books that are critical of Jews. The other kind is not so interesting.

Not at all true. Now, what are the figures you are referring to. I cannot afford to buy every book on every topic. Dershowitz' book appears to be a plagiarism of a fabrication anyway.

Mycroft

10th October 2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Not at all true. Now, what are the figures you are referring to. I cannot afford to buy every book on every topic. Dershowitz' book appears to be a plagiarism of a fabrication anyway.

Does Australia not have a public library system?

a_unique_person

10th October 2003, 09:24 PM

You have the book, why don't you just quote them from it and save us all the trouble?

Yes, Australia has an excellent public library system.

Mycroft

10th October 2003, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

You have the book, why don't you just quote them from it and save us all the trouble?

I think that a man who would buy, read and then defend Finkelstein can also read Dershowitz. You're obsessed with Jews and Israel, he writes about Jews and Israel. You should love it.

Unless, of course, you only read books that criticize Jews and Israel. Do you?

Originally posted by a_unique_person Yes, Australia has an excellent public library system.

I'm glad to hear it! Then cost isn't really an issue, is it?

JAR

10th October 2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
To this day, they are referred to as 'cockroaches' and worse, treated like "ni**rs".
Based on the way African-Americans where I live are treated, I'd say that the Palestinians aren't treated poorly at all.

a_unique_person

11th October 2003, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

I think that a man who would buy, read and then defend Finkelstein can also read Dershowitz. You're obsessed with Jews and Israel, he writes about Jews and Israel. You should love it.

Unless, of course, you only read books that criticize Jews and Israel. Do you?

Not at all.

Mycroft

11th October 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Not at all.

Splendid! I'm sure we all look forward to reading your review then.

a_unique_person

12th October 2003, 02:50 AM

So what are the figures for Palestinians settling Palestine that you have?

a_unique_person

12th October 2003, 05:33 PM

chirp...chirp

Mycroft

12th October 2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
chirp...chirp

Didn't we settle this already? If your memory needs refreshing, just back up about a half-dozen posts and ready my reply to the last time you asked.

a_unique_person

12th October 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Didn't we settle this already? If your memory needs refreshing, just back up about a half-dozen posts and ready my reply to the last time you asked.

I asked and you replied.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by a_unique_person
There were about 24,000 Jews at 1880. How many Palestinians do you believe there were then?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alan Dershowitz just wrote a book about it. Why don't you go and read it?

Oh, I forgot. You only read books that are critical of Jews. The other kind is not so interesting.

CapelDodger

18th October 2003, 02:39 PM

from Mycroft:
And before the civil rights movement in the United States, many blacks thought they should ride in the back of the bus
Your evidence, please? I got the impression they were pretty hacked-off with the situation.

By this you are equating the majority of 19th CE European Jews with Uncle Toms; is that your intention? For you, it's not Jews that matter, only the patriots of your chosen nation. Other Jews are self-haters, unpatriotic Uncle Toms. And you accuse me of being anti-Jew.
How very interesting. I can see why someone who is anti-religion is also anti-Jew
That is interesting. How is it that you can see that? Is there a chain of logic involved? Does said chain lead to me being anti-Hindu or anti-Arab? Having rejected the religion held by most of my family, am I anti-family? I'm not much impressed by Feng Shui; do I now carry the burden of being anti-Chinese? An explanation might give me an insight into your thought processes, which are an enigma currently.

CapelDodger

18th October 2003, 02:46 PM

from Mycroft:
am a United States citizen and a patriot. I love and support my country
I'm sorry, I missed that detail. I'd assumed you were Jewish, on insufficient evidence. I will, I hope, learn from my mistake.

CapelDodger

18th October 2003, 03:37 PM

from Mycroft:
Uh-huh. And about 85% of those Arabs had moved into the region since the turn of the century
Nationalists often come up with this sort of claptrap. Serbs claim that the Kosovans only came from Albania since 1920. Ulster Prods claim that the Catholic population only arrived after the Plantation (to get jobs with the enterprising incomers). The long-established villages, the graveyards, the everyday documentation of taxes and conscription are ignored.

The argument arises when Nationalism is imported as a philosophy. Where nations form naturally from the shared ethnic/cultural/geographical unity of an area there is no need to invent these ideas. Where nations do not form naturally only because they are part of a larger, imperial unit there is, again, no need for invention. Nationalism - as demonstrated by England and France - is, in these circumstances, a philosophy to use against the old order. Nationalism as a political philosophy was defined in Germany and Central Europe and was regarded as a progressive, modernising force. In Germany its success was coincident with progress; in Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman lands its failure was coincident with decline. The unfortunate result was that Nationalism was latched onto as a progressive force in itself.

Nationalism (as a defined philososphical concept) requires an ethnic/cultural/geographical unity that is accepted by the overwhelming majority of the population. That's OK in Germany, Spain or Bohemia/Czech Republic but it's damn-all use in the Balkans or Palestine, or India for that matter. No good comes of nationalism. People have either already got what it gives them or it creates unnatural divisions.

The Turkish population returns for Palestine in the 1880's give a population of 300,000. This is certainly drastically understated since tax and conscription were based on these returns and graft was endemic. The British Diplomatic Services gave an estimate of 650,000, a small proportion of whom were Jewish and they lived overwhelmingly in Jerusalem. Nationalism was imported to Zionism by a tiny minority of European Jews who had bought into the idea that status comes only with a nation. They also had the European attitude that made it seem quite natural to draw lines in the map with no regard to the "backward" people affected. This happened at at time when those attitudes were being increasingly questioned. And it happened at the start of a half-century when humanity was given the chance to see just what nationalism means given its head - courtesy of Germany and Japan.

Israel is stuck with a 19th CE European mindset. It's no wonder there are so many young Israelis in London.

CapelDodger

18th October 2003, 03:48 PM

Hi Cleopatra:
Well, Capel Dodger it seems to me that according to you what makes a source trustworthy is who is the poster who quotes it.
Not at all. I've given a particular source, but I've also given the reasons why I think it's authoritative. It can't be dismissed simply because other sources from the same time and geographical location are utterly wrong about something else. The National Enyclopaedia happens to be my only source from that date (it was the first set I bought, inherited by a schoolfriend who had no interest in them at all), but the situation at the eastern end of the Mediterranean 120 years ago is hardly mysterious. Any more than Kosovo and its Albanian population.

Mycroft

19th October 2003, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Mycroft:

Your evidence, please? I got the impression they were pretty hacked-off with the situation.

By this you are equating the majority of 19th CE European Jews with Uncle Toms; is that your intention? For you, it's not Jews that matter, only the patriots of your chosen nation. Other Jews are self-haters, unpatriotic Uncle Toms. And you accuse me of being anti-Jew.
Wow, you read a lot into my words. Rather than try to interpret what you think I’m saying, I’ll just restate my point:

Anytime someone or some group tries to change society, they will come against resistance. Some of this resistance will even be from those who would be helped by the changes to be attempted. Such resistance is not in itself good reason not to attempt to make changes.

To illustrate this point, I draw an analogy with the American civil rights movement. It did cause violence, it was expected to cause violence. There were riots, beatings, lynchings, increased activity from the Klan and other hate groups. This violence, this fear of violence in no way invalidated the goals of the civil rights movement.

The same applies to Zionism. While I disagree that Zionism in itself is a cause for anti-Semitism, I would also add that fear of such a reaction is not in itself a valid reason to oppose it.

If you want to talk about Uncle Toms or self-hating Jews, I’ll be more than happy to discuss it with you, but I suggest you make that a new thread.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
That is interesting. How is it that you can see that? Is there a chain of logic involved? Does said chain lead to me being anti-Hindu or anti-Arab? Having rejected the religion held by most of my family, am I anti-family? I'm not much impressed by Feng Shui; do I now carry the burden of being anti-Chinese? An explanation might give me an insight into your thought processes, which are an enigma currently.
I can’t see how being anti-religion would lead you to be anti-Arab. Arab is not a religion. It might lead you to be anti-Muslim. I suppose anti-Muslimism could also lead to anti-Arabism if it were extreme enough, but not all Muslims are Arabs.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Mycroft:

I'm sorry, I missed that detail. I'd assumed you were Jewish, on insufficient evidence. I will, I hope, learn from my mistake.
What is there in being a United States citizen and a patriot that precludes me from being Jewish? How would being or not being Jewish change anything that I say? Right now it is your thought process that is an enigma.

Mycroft

19th October 2003, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Mycroft:

Nationalists often come up with this sort of claptrap…
No one debates that there were Arabs in the region, but the fact remains that many of them were nomads and many more migrated for various reasons.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The Turkish population returns for Palestine in the 1880's give a population of 300,000. This is certainly drastically understated since tax and conscription were based on these returns and graft was endemic. The British Diplomatic Services gave an estimate of 650,000, a small proportion of whom were Jewish and they lived overwhelmingly in Jerusalem.
I’d be interested in seeing your source of information. Did it come with maps?

If for the sake of argument we accepted the larger of these two numbers, how many would be nomadic Arabs? How many lived in areas of Palestine that are not modern day Israel?

a_unique_person

19th October 2003, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

No one debates that there were Arabs in the region, but the fact remains that many of them were nomads and many more migrated for various reasons.

Nomad = Less than human

I’d be interested in seeing your source of information. Did it come with maps?

If for the sake of argument we accepted the larger of these two numbers, how many would be nomadic Arabs? How many lived in areas of Palestine that are not modern day Israel?

That's right, nomads have no rights.

CapelDodger

19th October 2003, 02:19 PM

from Mycroft:
Wow, you read a lot into my words
You claimed that many US blacks felt that they should sit at the back of the bus. If you don't wish to be misinterpreted you need more clarity.

Your analogy is invalid. The emancipation of US blacks was the righting of a wrong that existed, and was worth the violence it required and provoked. The creation of a wrong by planting a colony in occupied land and "transferring" the population has no points in common.
The same applies to Zionism. While I disagree that Zionism in itself is a cause for anti-Semitism, I would also add that fear of such a reaction is not in itself a valid reason to oppose it.
Nationalist Zionism has always claimed to be speaking for all Jews, when in fact they were (until the Holocaust) a small minority. What right did they have to create that danger to others, and why should those others not oppose it? Do you seriously believe the danger to the community caused by an action is not a valid reason for opposing that action?
can’t see how being anti-religion would lead you to be anti-Arab
Could you explain why it would lead me to be anti-Jew?
No one debates that there were Arabs in the region, but the fact remains that many of them were nomads and many more migrated for various reasons.
You really do come down the hill pretty smartly, don't you? From 80% to well, there were people moving around.

CapelDodger

19th October 2003, 02:21 PM

from Mycroft:
Zionism is nothing more than Israeli patriotism.
Nationalist Zionism led to Israel, so it can hardly be an expressionof Israeli patriotism. Did you mean Jewish patriotism?

aerocontrols

19th October 2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from Mycroft:

Nationalist Zionism led to Israel, so it can hardly be an expressionof Israeli patriotism. Did you mean Jewish patriotism?

It would seem to me that, if this statement is true, I cannot claim that the Declaration of Independence is the work of American patriots. Or any other event prior to that Declaration.

Similarly, since there isn't a Palestinian state... there can be no Palestinian patriots?

MattJ

Mycroft

19th October 2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Nomad = Less than human

That's right, nomads have no rights.

Wow, why are you expressing such bigoted remarks? I would never say that nomads are less than human or have no rights. They are simply people who by culture or choice are not tied to any specific land.

a_unique_person

19th October 2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Wow, why are you expressing such bigoted remarks? I would never say that nomads are less than human or have no rights. They are simply people who by culture or choice are not tied to any specific land.

I was just commenting your need to make a distinction on the fact that there were nomands living there.

Mycroft

19th October 2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

You claimed that many US blacks felt that they should sit at the back of the bus. If you don't wish to be misinterpreted you need more clarity.

That you disagree with something I said doesn’t make it unclear. I did say that many black people felt that they should accept the society as it was rather than risk the backlash of trying to change it, and that did include sitting at the back of the bus.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Your analogy is invalid. The emancipation of US blacks was the righting of a wrong that existed, and was worth the violence it required and provoked…

The analogy is valid in the context it was used. Both groups attempted to correct the wrongs of discrimination. One group chose to assert their rights in the society they were in, the other group chose to create a new society.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The creation of a wrong by planting a colony in occupied land and "transferring" the population has no points in common.

The population transfer was a result of a war started by Arabic nations against the newly created state of Israel. The early Zionists could not have anticipated the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the British Occupation, the two world wars and the creation of Arabic nationalism that placed the region in so much turmoil. Many factors went into creating these events; it’s illogical to ascribe it all to Zionism.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Nationalist Zionism has always claimed to be speaking for all Jews…

No more so than any movement claims to speak for the people it seeks to benefit, even those that do not support the movement.

Originally posted by CapelDodger

…when in fact they were (until the Holocaust) a small minority.

Any new idea will only be supported by a minority at first.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
What right did they have to create that danger to others, and why should those others not oppose it? Do you seriously believe the danger to the community caused by an action is not a valid reason for opposing that action?

The right of self-preservation.

Any new idea has its detractors. Democracy, industrialization, human rights, rock & roll music…whatever. If people did not advance their ideas despite opposition, the world would never change.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Could you explain why it would lead me to be anti-Jew?

Why, are you looking for a road map? ;)

I could, but don’t you think this issue is a distraction?

Some people, critics of Israel, go on and on about how charges of racism or anti-Semitism are abused to slander critics of Israel and derail legitimate debate. If you agree that that happens, why then are you working so hard to get me to discuss if and why I might think you’re anti-Jew? We’re having a debate, let’s not derail it.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
You really do come down the hill pretty smartly, don't you? From 80% to well, there were people moving around.

Citing the reasons for previous numbers is not the same as coming down from them. Nice try, though.:wink:

Mycroft

19th October 2003, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I was just commenting your need to make a distinction on the fact that there were nomands living there.

When population figures are given to support who had what ties to what land, it's worth taking note if some of that population was nomadic. It's not something that's often mentioned, yet it's relevent.

Don't be so fast with the race-card next time. ;)

a_unique_person

19th October 2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

When population figures are given to support who had what ties to what land, it's worth taking note if some of that population was nomadic. It's not something that's often mentioned, yet it's relevent.

Don't be so fast with the race-card next time. ;)

I don't see the relevance.

Mycroft

19th October 2003, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I don't see the relevance.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

If I buy a hotel and stop renting rooms there to out of town visitors, am I guilty of evicting those guests?

No, those guests were nomadic. The hotel was not their permanent residence. Those guests were visitors. The next time they want to have a convention, they will have to do it somewhere else.

a_unique_person

19th October 2003, 10:38 PM

Cleopatra

19th October 2003, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Nationalist Zionism has always claimed to be speaking for all Jews, when in fact they were (until the Holocaust) a small minority. What right did they have to create that danger to others, and why should those others not oppose it? Do you seriously believe the danger to the community caused by an action is not a valid reason for opposing that action?

Capel Dodger

You have to understand that your argument is wrong and it doesn't stand either in front of the Science of History either in front of Logic.

You judge the past based on the present something that is totally wrong when it comes to History.

You claim that Zionism was wrong, you claim that Zionists created dangers to to others based on the present situation in Israel.

Back then, the only danger seemed and turned out to hide in Europe, so you must admit that those Zionists were right , the events proved them right and you try to prove them wrong based on today's situation.

For God's sake Capel Dodger, you are a clever man I cannot believe that you fail to see that this argument doesn't stand.

As to 600.000 - 1.000.000 Arabs that they had to leave the land of Palestine the answer is very simple.

All the had to do was to accept the UN partition plan.

They didn't. The Arab world betrayed the Palestinians and they didn't let them accept the plan. They had the opportunity to have a State since 1947 but they refused it.

They'd better shut-up now.

Mycroft

20th October 2003, 12:11 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I don't recall them renting any rooms in any hotels there.

Now you're just being silly. When my daughter does this, I tickle her. :roll:

CapelDodger

20th October 2003, 01:30 PM

from aerocontrols:
It would seem to me that, if this statement is true, I cannot claim that the Declaration of Independence is the work of American patriots. Or any other event prior to that Declaration.
Going by Longman's definition "One who loves his/her country and supports its authority and interests", there isn't an authority to support before the Declaration. Prior to that the self-named Patriots were insurrectionists, insurgents, revolutionaries. Such sophistry aside, they were actually there, they had their States (which were effectively their countries; one could argue that the US has never actually become a nation. States rights never did get properly sorted out, and that's a question of sovereignty but talk about digression ...) and some idea of the Federation. Israel was a concept dreamt up by people who weren't even there. How can that justify the term "patriot"?

I also accept that there aren't any Palestinian patriots. Their concerns are far more parochial than that. There is a vast disparity between, say, Gazan Arabs and West Bank Arabs. The designation "Palestinian" is a construct born of a mindset that has nationalism as an axiom.

CapelDodger

20th October 2003, 02:32 PM

You judge the past based on the present something that is totally wrong when it comes to History.
I examine the birth of Nationalist Zionism at the time of its creation. This is something quite central to my arguments. The reaction of the majority of Jews was either disinterest (amongst the ordinary majority) or alarm (amongst the intelligentsia and "chattering classes"). The present situation in Israel is one that could be, and was, predicted as a high probability. Chronomancy (the art of telling the future by waiting to see what happens) supports those views. Halifax, for instance, opposed the Balfour Declaration and predicted a century of conflict resulting from it.

To the extent that my emotions get engaged by anything, what really hacks me off is the way the established Zionism, which had no idea of or interest in a Jewish State, was dragged under by loud-mouthed and influential egotists.
You claim that Zionism was wrong, you claim that Zionists created dangers to to others based on the present situation in Israel.
The dangers I argue were created were not those of Israel today but the danger that anti-semitism could be promoted by the claim that Jews were nationals of this other state, not the state in which they lived. That they were patriots, not of the nations that they'd fought for in the trenches, but of this other constructed state. One of the arguments used by German and Austrian anti-semites.
Back then, the only danger seemed and turned out to hide in Europe, so you must admit that those Zionists were right , the events proved them right and you try to prove them wrong based on today's situation.
To the vast majority of Jews, danger did not seem at the time to be hiding in Europe. Emancipation - not just of Jews but of all citizens - was the most obvious future. Clericalism was fading, rationalism and democracy were synonymous with success. Places like Russia where anti-semitism was used as a political tool were seen as backward. The Dreyfus affair led to a furore across Europe, and French Catholic power went into steep decline. What happened to change that trajectory? And why in Germany and Austria?

Could it have anything to do with Chaim Weitzmann's boasts that he had secured the Balfour Declaration by winning the war for Britain? A claim he made during the war. He claimed that "The Jews" controlled the grain market of Southern Russia and that they could prevent that grain reaching the Germans after the collapse of the Russian Empire. It was nonsense, of course, but he was promoting his vision of a Jewish State and the effect such a claim would have - with the invention of the Protocols so recent - meant nothing to him.
All the had to do was to accept the UN partition plan.

They didn't. The Arab world betrayed the Palestinians and they didn't let them accept the plan. They had the opportunity to have a State since 1947 but they refused it.
Sharon blew the gaff recently when he said that a return of refugees would "destroy the nature of the Jewish State". The Jewish State could only exist - as a democratic, rather than an apartheid state - with a majority of Jews, which wasn't ever going to happen by immigration. Most Jewish emigrants went to the US or Europe, and not because of immigration constraints. As Europeans, they had no interest in such a thoroughly foreign place.

The Yishuv/Israel never accepted partition. If the Arabs had, it wouldn't have made any difference. The project was always the same, and it's called Greater Israel. That's what Sharon intends, that's what the settlers intend, that's what the military intends. The Arab population was always going to be "transferred". That's what made the original plan an evil project. (Now, that is looking at things from a modern perspective.)

CapelDodger

20th October 2003, 02:54 PM

from Mycroft:
The population transfer was a result of a war started by Arabic nations against the newly created state of Israel. The early Zionists could not have anticipated the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the British Occupation, the two world wars and the creation of Arabic nationalism that placed the region in so much turmoil. Many factors went into creating these events; it’s illogical to ascribe it all to Zionism.
If you find you have to resort to this sort of lying, shouldn't you be questioning the enterprise you're supporting? Population transfer was the intention decades before 1947 - when partition was rejected by Israel and the civil war began that saw 300,000 Arabs made refugees. In the summer of 1948 the Israeli cabinet passed a resolution that the refugees should never be allowed back. Refugees normally return to their homes after hostilities have ended, but these weren't really refugees, they were expellees. Arab forces didn't become engaged until the declaration of statehood. By this point they were outnumbered and outgunned and the Israelis had secured their first strategic objectives. They achieved further gains, and the conservative total of expellees is 600,000. From 55% of the land suggested by partition they exanded to 78%, but were fought to a standstill there. Hundreds of Arab villages were cleared of inhabitants and bulldozed so there was nowhere to return to - something we've seen more recently in Bosnia.

If you think the expulsion was justified, justify it, don't try to pretend it never happened.

"The creation of Arabic nationalism"! Who could have foreseen that after a bunch of nationalists declare a Jewish State where these Arabs live? If that hadn't happened, there'd just be a Jewish State with an Arab majority and nobody would have had to be "transferred" ... I'm being sarcastic.

Nikk

20th October 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

If I buy a hotel and stop renting rooms there to out of town visitors, am I guilty of evicting those guests?

No, those guests were nomadic. The hotel was not their permanent residence. Those guests were visitors. The next time they want to have a convention, they will have to do it somewhere else.

If those guests have homes to go to then the guests are not nomadic. It is of course possible that most American hotels cater for itinerant shepherds and their flocks. I have not run across them myself but its a big country and I suppose you know best.

As you seem concerned about the population of Palestine this may help......

In the biography of Ben Gurion by Shabtai Teveth "Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs From Peace to War" on pp9-10 it states......."

"Four days after the constituent meeting, on October 8, 1906, the ten members of the platform committee met in an Arab hostel in Ramleh. For THREE DAYS they sat on stools debating, and at night they slept on mats. An Arab boy brought them coffee in small cups. They left the hostel only to grab an occasional bite in the marketplace. On the first evening, they stole three hours to tour the marketplace of Ramleh and the ruins of the nearby fortress. Ben-Gurion remarked only on the buildings, ruins, and scenery. He gave no thought to the Arabs, their problems, their social conditions, or their cultural life. Nor had he yet acquainted himself with the Jewish community in Palestine . In all of Palestine there were.....(in 1906)..... 700,000 inhabitants, only 55,000 of whom were Jews, and only 550 of these were pioneers ....(Zionist Settlers)......." ........

In 1918 Ben Gurion published an article "The Rights of the Jews and others in Palestine," and stated.....

"Palestine is not an empty country . . ._ on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants."

In 1924 he declared:

"We do not recognize the right of the Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders."

In 1928 he pronounced that "the Arabs have no right to close the country to us . What right do they have to the Negev desert, which is uninhabited?"; and in 1930, "The Arabs have no right to the Jordan river, and no right to prevent the construction of a power plant ( by a Jewish organisation). They have a right only to that which they have created and to their homes."_ (Shabtai Teveth, p. 38) .

As you can see Ben Gurion is a classic colonialist. If the locals don't exploit the country as efficiently as europeans or americans can then they are not entitled to a say in how they are to be exploited.

Today of course the Arabs don't even have a right to their homes which can be bulldozed at will.

Mycroft

20th October 2003, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
If you find you have to resort to this sort of lying, shouldn't you be questioning the enterprise you're supporting?
How ironic. That’s exactly what I might have said to you.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Population transfer was the intention decades before 1947 - when partition was rejected by Israel and the civil war began that saw 300,000 Arabs made refugees.
The intention of whom?

I hope you’re not going to try to tell me that all these tens of thousands of people in this Zionist movement that spanned some six decades all spoke with one voice in support of one and only one way of dealing with the local Arabic populations. That there was no debate, discussion, no variety of ideas and suggestions put forth for argument, that they all followed the same game plan from day one.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
In the summer of 1948 the Israeli cabinet passed a resolution that the refugees should never be allowed back.
Yes they did. I would have done the same thing. Being busy absorbing all the Jewish refugees expelled by Arabic nations at the same time, I would have expected the Arabic countries to absorb the Arabic refugees.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Refugees normally return to their homes after hostilities have ended, but these weren't really refugees, they were expellees.
One might think that if one didn’t look at too many other post-conflict refugee situations in history. You might take a close look at the India/Pakistan independence, how refugees from both these countries sought refuge among people that spoke the same language and shared the same religion. Nobody has ever suggested repatriation for either of these groups of people, and they didn’t have the added chaos of fending off invading armies during their conflict.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Arab forces didn't become engaged until the declaration of statehood. By this point they were outnumbered and outgunned and the Israelis had secured their first strategic objectives. They achieved further gains, and the conservative total of expellees is 600,000. From 55% of the land suggested by partition they exanded to 78%, but were fought to a standstill there.
Good for them!

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Hundreds of Arab villages were cleared of inhabitants and bulldozed so there was nowhere to return to - something we've seen more recently in Bosnia.
Hundreds of Arab villages were preserved too. Their descendents are still living in Israel as Israeli citizens today. It’s worth noting also that their per-capita income is about five times that of the average Arab citizens living under Arab rule in other regions.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
If you think the expulsion was justified, justify it, don't try to pretend it never happened.
Why go to the trouble of building straw-man arguments when you know I’ll be reading them and correcting you?
Was there a population transfer? Of course. Would it have been nice if things had worked out differently? Yes. What do you want me to say? There was war, one side lost. That’s how history is.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
"The creation of Arabic nationalism"! Who could have foreseen that after a bunch of nationalists declare a Jewish State where these Arabs live? If that hadn't happened, there'd just be a Jewish State with an Arab majority and nobody would have had to be "transferred" ... I'm being sarcastic.
Well, if you credit Zionist Jews with the creation of Arab nationalism, then there are some twenty Arab nations that should be grateful, don’t you think? If it were not for Israel, these nations would be someone else’s colonies. …I’m being sarcastic.

Mycroft

20th October 2003, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by Nikk If those guests have homes to go to then the guests are not nomadic. It is of course possible that most American hotels cater for itinerant shepherds and their flocks. I have not run across them myself but its a big country and I suppose you know best.
Yes, no metaphor is perfect. Still, that one is still useful in illustrating the difference between transient and permanent populations.

As you seem concerned about the population of Palestine this may help......
Originally posted by Nikk
In the biography of Ben Gurion by Shabtai Teveth "Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs From Peace to War" on pp9-10 it states......."
It looks like an interesting book. I’ll add it to my reading list.

a_unique_person

21st October 2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Yes they did. I would have done the same thing. Being busy absorbing all the Jewish refugees expelled by Arabic nations at the same time, I would have expected the Arabic countries to absorb the Arabic refugees.

They were expelled because of the creation of Israel. You are putting the cart before the horse.

Mycroft

21st October 2003, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

They were expelled because of the creation of Israel. You are putting the cart before the horse.

It was not the creation of Israel but the war against the creation of Israel that made these people refugees.

CapelDodger

23rd October 2003, 09:49 AM

from Mycroft:
The intention of whom?
The intention of the leadership of the Yishuv, which was the political entity that was created by the Nationalist Zionist movement and subsequently became Israel.
hope you’re not going to try to tell me that all these tens of thousands of people in this Zionist movement that spanned some six decades all spoke with one voice in support of one and only one way of dealing with the local Arabic populations
Obviously not. Are you going to argue that the war of 1947-1949 was fought by tens of thousands of individuals with no overall military or political authority? I lapsed into sarcasm when it was late and I was tired; I'll try to refrain in future.
Yes they did. I would have done the same thing. Being busy absorbing all the Jewish refugees expelled by Arabic nations at the same time, I would have expected the Arabic countries to absorb the Arabic refugees.
It's a strange expectation. Quite aside from the fact that Middle Eastern Jewish communities suffered as a result of the creation of Israel by Europeans, why should a family not be allowed to return to its home? Why should these destitute strangers be accepted by another nation, with its own problems, just because you choose to lump all those nations together as "Arab"?

They were not allowed to return, of course, because the Jewish State could not exist without the expulsion of many of the region's inhabitants. That was clear and recognised by the Yishuv by at least the mid-twenties; Weitzman used the phrase "transferred by agreement or by other means" as early as 1917.

The expulsion of a large part of the Arab population was a deliberate policy of the founders of Israel. It was not caused by Arab intransigence or freak weather. To claim that it was a happy accident is to lie.
One might think that if one didn’t look at too many other post-conflict refugee situations in history. You might take a close look at the India/Pakistan independence, how refugees from both these countries sought refuge among people that spoke the same language and shared the same religion. Nobody has ever suggested repatriation for either of these groups of people, and they didn’t have the added chaos of fending off invading armies during their conflict.
You choose as an example another disastrous, confected nationalist project that continues to have destructive repurcussions in Kashmir and elsewhere today. This does rather support my view that the confected nationalism in Palestine was bound to be equally disastrous. Do you have a better example?
Hundreds of Arab villages were preserved too.
No argument over the bulldozing, then. The continued existence of other villages hardly matters to the people who've lost their homes.
Well, if you credit Zionist Jews with the creation of Arab nationalism, then there are some twenty Arab nations that should be grateful, don’t you think? If it were not for Israel, these nations would be someone else’s colonies.
You think they're not? (The idea that the Arab states were going to remain colonies when an anti-Imperialist US and USSR were ordering the world is fantastical. Just how important do you think Israel is?) And why grateful? Why do you assume that nationalism is a good thing, like modern medicine, say? What good has it done the people of the Middle East since 1947? What good is it doing the people of Israel? What good has it done the people of the Balkans?

CapelDodger

23rd October 2003, 10:07 AM

from Mycroft:
Suppose I and a few friends move to your country, don't buy your land but drain the swamp next door and turn it into a farm. Ten years later we're doing really well so we make you an offer on your land, you take it and move away. Have you been evicted then?
I've been meaning to get back to this fantasy. The estates that were cleared of their Arab tenants weren't bought by diligent, intelligent, ambitious immigrants from their indolent neighbours. They were pruchased, in the main, by the Jewish Agency using money that was contributed by diaspora Zionists, principally American. The land remained (and remains) in the possession of the Government (Israel was, after all, created by socialists). Arabs were evicted and the land was only released to Jews. The previous tenants went to the towns - as the dispossessed so often do - bearing with them a bad attitude towards Zionists. And very likely with the idea that all Jews are Zionists.

An analogy would be a street of apartment blocks in, say New York, some of which belong to an owner that feels threatened by black people. The owner has money, and purchases properties, evicting the black tenants and subsidising white tenants to move in. Eventually they have an all-white street where people don't feel threatened by their black neighbours. You might get away with that in the US, but you'd have the law on you in the UK. And quite rightly so, in my opinion.

Cleopatra

23rd October 2003, 10:11 AM

You might get away with that in the US, but you'd have the law on you in the UK. And quite rightly so, in my opinion.

This is the reason why Capel Dodger we, the Balkan and Middle Eastern mobs wanted to have a nation of our own; in order to resemble to the shiny, democratic, fair and royal nation of yours :)

Mycroft

23rd October 2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

I've been meaning to get back to this fantasy. The estates that were cleared of their Arab tenants weren't bought by diligent, intelligent, ambitious immigrants from their indolent neighbours. They were pruchased, in the main, by the Jewish Agency using money that was contributed by diaspora Zionists, principally American.

I know, but I don’t see the relevance. The fact is if you purchase rental property you have rights to that property, including the right to evict tenants and do something else with it. How the financing is arranged and how the title is held are irrelevant details.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The land remained (and remains) in the possession of the Government (Israel was, after all, created by socialists). :rolleyes:

Socialism and other utopian ideals heavily influenced the early Israeli settlers. This was very common in the 19th century; the United States had many such communities, some which even incorporated religious exclusivity. While this information is interesting from a historic perspective, I fail to understand it’s relevance in this discussion.

Yes, in Israel there is very little (but there is some) private land. When you buy land, you create a long-term lease with the government, the lease payments being analogous to property tax. This system, by the way, is very similar to how property is handled in the states of Hawaii and Alaska.

Originally posted by CapelDodger Arabs were evicted and the land was only released to Jews. The previous tenants went to the towns - as the dispossessed so often do - bearing with them a bad attitude towards Zionists. And very likely with the idea that all Jews are Zionists.

Sure. And if I were renting an apartment and someone bought the building I was in, and evicted me, I might not feel kindly towards the new landowner. (I probably wouldn’t give it much thought. Being a renter implies that someday the landlord might decide not to rent to you anymore. Such is life.) I understand how someone might feel upset. What I don’t understand is how those feelings are expected to be maintained for years, decades, and transmitted through seven or eight generations.

a_unique_person

23rd October 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

It was not the creation of Israel but the war against the creation of Israel that made these people refugees.

And, as everyone knew, the Arabs would react to the creation of Israel with force, as would anyone to such an act.

ssibal

23rd October 2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

And, as everyone knew, the Arabs would react to the creation of Israel with force, as would anyone to such an act.

You mean the act of creating a state for the Jewish? That is why the Arabs reacted, not because a state was artificially created but because it was for Jews.

a_unique_person

23rd October 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

You mean the act of creating a state for the Jewish? That is why the Arabs reacted, not because a state was artificially created but because it was for Jews.

I think we are at the crux of the problem here,

Are you saying that if some Americans had turned up and unilaterally created a state of Ameriale, then the Arabs would not have objected?

ssibal

23rd October 2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I think we are at the crux of the problem here,

Are you saying that if some Americans had turned up and unilaterally created a state of Ameriale, then the Arabs would not have objected?

I am sure there would have been objections but I do not think that every neighboring Arab nation would attack the state of Ameriale with the goal of wiping them out as they did with Israel.

a_unique_person

23rd October 2003, 05:53 PM

It just doesn't make sense. Before modern Zionism, there was a sizeable Jewish population in Palestine, about 10,000 around the middle of the 19th century, many of the immigrants. What evidence is there that the Arabs were plotting to throw them into the sea and kill them all then?

ssibal

23rd October 2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It just doesn't make sense. Before modern Zionism, there was a sizeable Jewish population in Palestine, about 10,000 around the middle of the 19th century, many of the immigrants. What evidence is there that the Arabs were plotting to throw them into the sea and kill them all then?

Who claimed that they were? 10,000 Jews living in the reigon is not the same as a nation for Jews. You know it is like a person who says they have nothing against blacks or gays but if a black or gay moves in next door they go nuts. So, why did they all attack and state their goal of driving them into the sea and kill them all if it was not because it was a Jewish state?

a_unique_person

23rd October 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

Who claimed that they were? 10,000 Jews living in the reigon is not the same as a nation for Jews. You know it is like a person who says they have nothing against blacks or gays but if a black or gay moves in next door they go nuts. So, why did they all attack and state their goal of driving them into the sea and kill them all if it was not because it was a Jewish state?

But if they hated them as much as you claimed they do, then they would have been actively persecuting them back then.

Why did they attack them and talk of driving them into the sea? Because their country was taken from them. They had just gotten rid of the Ottomans, after hundreds of years, the English had promised them their own country for helping do so, and now they find the English have gone against their word and instead promised it to someone else. It wouldn't have mattered who it was that turned up, they would have been pi$$ssed off.

ssibal

23rd October 2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

But if they hated them as much as you claimed they do, then they would have been actively persecuting them back then.

And they were, for several decades before the creation of Israel.

Why did they attack them and talk of driving them into the sea? Because their country was taken from them. They had just gotten rid of the Ottomans, after hundreds of years, the English had promised them their own country for helping do so, and now they find the English have gone against their word and instead promised it to someone else. It wouldn't have mattered who it was that turned up, they would have been pi$$ssed off.

What country are you talking about? Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Iraq were the ones that attacked Israel. What country was taken from Iraq that motivated them to attack? What country was taken from Syria, Lebananon, or Egypt? What country was taken from Transjordan, the country that was created by the British during the Mandate period?

a_unique_person

23rd October 2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

And they were, for several decades before the creation of Israel.

[B]

I have not seen any evidence of that.

What country are you talking about? Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan, and Iraq were the ones that attacked Israel. What country was taken from Iraq that motivated them to attack? What country was taken from Syria, Lebananon, or Egypt? What country was taken from Transjordan, the country that was created by the British during the Mandate period?

Arabs are like the rowdy family. They will brawl amongst each other, and unite when one is attacked.

The country that was taken was the one that the people of Palestine lived in. They got to keep their houses under the other rulers, at least, and their dignity. Under Israel they lost both.

ssibal

23rd October 2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I have not seen any evidence of that.

Oh, I see they were all just going about their daily business then overnight when Israel was created they snapped because they realized that their country was taken from them......:rolleyes:

Arabs are like the rowdy family. They will brawl amongst each other, and unite when one is attacked.

So, which one of those nations was attacked by Israel in 1948? Oh wait, none of them.

The country that was taken was the one that the people of Palestine lived in. They got to keep their houses under the other rulers, at least, and their dignity. Under Israel they lost both.

Amazing, it only took about 24 hours to relieve all those Arabs of their houses and dignity! Nevermind the fact that Israel was not even a quarter of that 'country.'

renata

23rd October 2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

But if they hated them as much as you claimed they do, then they would have been actively persecuting them back then.

Originally posted by ssibal

And they were, for several decades before the creation of Israel.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
[B]
I have not seen any evidence of that.

This site has several spelling errors, and obvious bias it may not be an accurate source

http://www.hsje.org/jews_kicked_out_of_arab_countrie.htm
Egypt
By 1897 there were more than 25,000 Jews in Egypt, concentrated in Cairo and Alexandria. In 1937 the population reached a peak of 63,500. Friedman wrote in "The Myth of Arab Tolerance", "One Caliph, Al-Hakem of the Fatimids devised particularly insidious humiliations for the Jews in his attempt to perform what he deemed his roll as "Redeemer of mankind", first
the Jews were forced to wear miniature golden calf images around their necks,as though they still worshipped the golden calf, but the Jews refused to convert. Next they wore bells, and after that six pound wooden blocks were hung around their necks. In fury at his failure, the Caliph had the Cairo Jewish quarter destroyed, along with it's Jewish residence, in". In 1945, with the rise of Egyptian nationalism and the cultivation of anti-Western and anti-Jewish sentiment, riots erupted. In the v lence, 10 Jews were killed, 350 injured, and a synagogue, a Jewish hospital, and an old-age home were burned down.

Iraq
in 1776, there was a slaughter of Jews
at Bosra, and in bitterness of anti Jewish measures taken by Turkish Muslim rulers in the 18th century caused many Jews to flea.
....
Under Muslim rule, beginning in the 7th century, the situation of the community fluctuated. Many Jews held high positions in government or prospered in commerce and trade. At the same time, Jews were subjected to special taxes, restrictions on their professional activity, and anti-Jewish incitement among the masses. Under British rule, which began in 1917, Jews fared well economically, and many were elected to government posts. This traditionally observant community was also allowed to found Zionist organizations and to pursue Hebrew studies.
All of this progress ended when Iraq gained independence in 1932. In June 1941, the Mufti-inspired, pro-Nazi coup of Rashid Ali sparked rioting and a pogrom in Baghdad. Armed Iraqi mobs, with the complicity of the police and the army, murdered 180 Jews and wounded almost 1,000.
....
Additional outbreaks of anti-Jewish rioting occurred between 1946-49. After the establishment of Israel in 1948, Zionism became a capital crime.

Algeria

Jewish settlement in present-day Algeria can be traced back to the first centuries of the Common Era. In the 14th century, with the deterioration of conditions in Spain, many Spanish Jews moved to Algeria. Among them were a number of outstanding scholars, including the Ribash and the Rashbatz. After
the French occupation of the country in 1830, Jews gradually adopted French culture and were granted French citizenship.
....
In 1934, a Nazi-incited pogrom in Constantine left 25 Jews dead and scores
injured.

Yemen

In Yemen from the seventh century on the Jewish populations suffered the severest possible interpretation of the Charter of Omar. For about 4 centuries, the Jews suffered under the fierce fanatical edict of the most intolerant Islamic sects.

...
The Yemen Epistle by Rambam in which he commiserated with Yemen's Jewry and besought them to keep the faith, and in
1724 fanatical rulers ordered synagogues destroyed, and Jewish public prayers were forbidden. The Jews were exiled, many died from starvation and the survivors were ordered to settle in Mausa, but later, this order was annulled by a decree in 1781 due to the need of their skilled craftsmen. Jacob Sappir a Jerusalem writer describes Yemeni Jews in Yemen in 1886:
"The Arab natives have always considered the Jew unclean, but his blood for them was not considered unclean. They lay claims to all his belongings, and if he is unwilling, they employ force...The Jews live outside the town in dark dwellings like prison cells or caves out of fear...for the least offense, he is sentenced to outrageous fines, which he is quite unable to pay. In case of non-payment, he is put in chains and cruelly beaten every day. Before the punishment is inflicted, the Cadi[judge] addresses him in entle tones and urges him to change his faith and obtain a share of all the glory of this world and of the world beyond. His refusal is again regarded as penal obstinacy. On the other hand, it is not open to the Jew to prosecute a Muslim, as the Muslim by right of law can dispose of the life and the property of the Jew, and it is only to be regarded as an act of magnanimity if the Jews are allowed to live. The Jew is not admissible as a witness, nor
has his oath any validity.".
.....
The Jews did not improve until the establishment of the French Protectorate in 1912, when they were given equality and religious autonomy. However, during World War II, when France was ruled by the anti-Semitic Vichy government, King Muhammed V prevented the deportation of Jews from Morocco.In 1922, the government of Yemen reintroduced an ancient Islamic law that
decreed that Jewish orphans under age 12 were to be forcibly converted to Islam.

Morocco

The Jewish community of present-day Morocco dates back more than 2,000 years. There were Jews living there, before it became a Roman province. in 1032 AD, 6000 Jews were murdered. Indeed he greatest persecution by the Arabs towards the Jews was in Fez, Morocco, nothing was worse than the slaughter of 120,000
Jews in 1146
.....
In 1391 a wave of Jewish refugees expelled from Spain brought new life to the community, as did new arrivals from Spain and Portugal in 1492 and 1497. From 1438, the Jews of Fez were forced to live in special quarters called mellahs, a name derived from the Arabic word for salt because the Jews in Morocco were
forced to carry out the job of salting the heads of executed prisoners prior to their public display. Chouraqui sums it up when he wrote: "such restriction and humiliation as to exceed anything in Europe". Charles de Foucauld in 1883 who was not generally
sympathetic to Jews writes of the Jews: "They are the most unfortunate of men, every Jew belongs body and soul to his seigneur, the sid[Arab master]". Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.

Tunisia

The first documented evidence of Jews in this area dates back to 200 A.D and demonstrates the existence of a community in Latin Carthage under Roman rule. Latin Carthage contained a significant Jewish presence, and several sages mentioned in the Talmud lived in this area from the 2nd to the 4th centuries.
....
In the 16th century, the "hated and despised" Jews of Tunis were periodically attacked by violence and they were subjected to "vehement anti-Jewish policy" during the various political struggles of the period. In 1869 Muslims butchered many Jews in the defenseless ghetto.
.....
Improvements in the condition of the community occurred during the reign of Ahmed Bey, which began in 1837. He and his successors implemented liberal legislation, and a large number of Jews rose to positions of political power during this reign.

Under French rule, Jews were gradually emancipated. However, beginning in November 1940, when the country was ruled by the Vichy authorities, Jews were subject to anti-Semitic laws. From November 1942 until May 1943, the country was occupied by German forces. During that time, the condition of the Jews deteriorated further, and many were deported to labor camps and had their property seized.

Libya

In 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews.
......
With the Italian occupation of Libya in 1911, the situation remained good and the Jews made great strides in education. At that time, there were about 21,000 Jews in the country, the majority in Tripoli. In the late 1930s, Fascist anti-Jewish laws were gradually enforced, and Jews were subject to terrible repression. Still, by 1941, the Jews accounted for a quarter of the population of Tripoli and maintained 44 synagogues. In 1942 the Germans occupied the Jewish quarter of Benghazi, plundered shops, and deported more than 2,000 Jews across the desert, where more than one-fifth of them perished. Many Jews from Tripoli were also sent to forced labor camps.Conditions did not greatly improve following the liberation. During the British occupation, there was a series of pogroms, the worst of which, in 1945, resulted in the deaths of more than 100 Jews in Tripoli and other towns and the destruction of five synagogues.

Some examples. I tried to put some history, to explain the age of the communities, but the site goes into much more depth. Interestingly, I notice that a lot of emancipation was driven by French or British occupation, and, similarly a lot of restriction in the 1940s by the Germans. I pulled out only examples before 1948, and tried to stay away from very old events, although in some cases I felt they were needed to give some perspective on situation of the Jewish community in a particular country. I have not verified this historical information, if someone can tell me if it is correct or not, please do so. Interestingly, it paints a picture of abuse, either via taxation, conversion, ghettos, or more cruel means in most countries until, in several countries, British or French rule.

I have not included the 1929 Hebron riots and other events in the area, because it might be argued they were due to Jewish nationalism.

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The country that was taken was the one that the people of Palestine lived in. They got to keep their houses under the other rulers, at least, and their dignity. Under Israel they lost both.

And yet Jordan did not give Palestinians their own state when they had the land from 1948-1967....why, why, I wonder... And their own brothers kept them in refugee camps for generations, while Arabs who stayed in Israel and became citizens have quality of life better than Arabs pretty much anywhere else in the Middle East. They certainly have more rights that Arabs pretty much anyone else in the Middle East...

a_unique_person

23rd October 2003, 09:56 PM

This site has several spelling errors, and obvious bias it may not be an accurate source

http://www.hsje.org/jews_kicked_out...ab_countrie.htm
Egypt

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By 1897 there were more than 25,000 Jews in Egypt, concentrated in Cairo and Alexandria. In 1937 the population reached a peak of 63,500. Friedman wrote in "The Myth of Arab Tolerance", "One Caliph, Al-Hakem of the Fatimids devised particularly insidious humiliations for the Jews in his attempt to perform what he deemed his roll as "Redeemer of mankind", first
the Jews were forced to wear miniature golden calf images around their necks,as though they still worshipped the golden calf, but the Jews refused to convert. Next they wore bells, and after that six pound wooden blocks were hung around their necks. In fury at his failure, the Caliph had the Cairo Jewish quarter destroyed, along with it's Jewish residence, in". In 1945, with the rise of Egyptian nationalism and the cultivation of anti-Western and anti-Jewish sentiment, riots erupted. In the v lence, 10 Jews were killed, 350 injured, and a synagogue, a Jewish hospital, and an old-age home were burned down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The dates of the first acts against the Jews are not dated. The first date given was when the first waves of immigration were happening. Already, the land bought was bought on the condition that it was not to be sold to Arabs, but only other Jews.

The Arabs are reacting to what is rightly percieved to be an invasion.

Iraq

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in 1776, there was a slaughter of Jews
at Bosra, and in bitterness of anti Jewish measures taken by Turkish Muslim rulers in the 18th century caused many Jews to flea.
....

The Turkish Ottoman rulers, not the indiginous Arabs

Under Muslim rule, beginning in the 7th century, the situation of the community fluctuated. Many Jews held high positions in government or prospered in commerce and trade. At the same time, Jews were subjected to special taxes, restrictions on their professional activity, and anti-Jewish incitement among the masses.

Pretty much the same story everywhere, the Arabs were not remarkable in their treatment of Jews. At the same time, intolerance was the general deal all round between faiths.

Under British rule, which began in 1917, Jews fared well economically, and many were elected to government posts. This traditionally observant community was also allowed to found Zionist organizations and to pursue Hebrew studies.
All of this progress ended when Iraq gained independence in 1932. In June 1941, the Mufti-inspired, pro-Nazi coup of Rashid Ali sparked rioting and a pogrom in Baghdad. Armed Iraqi mobs, with the complicity of the police and the army, murdered 180 Jews and wounded almost 1,000.
....
Additional outbreaks of anti-Jewish rioting occurred between 1946-49. After the establishment of Israel in 1948, Zionism became a capital crime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zionism is a political movement, not a religious one. And the aim of Zionism was to create a Jewish state in Palestine. However, this is not he Palestinians committing these acts.

It is also, once again, in the 20th century.

Algeria

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jewish settlement in present-day Algeria can be traced back to the first centuries of the Common Era. In the 14th century, with the deterioration of conditions in Spain, many Spanish Jews moved to Algeria. Among them were a number of outstanding scholars, including the Ribash and the Rashbatz. After
the French occupation of the country in 1830, Jews gradually adopted French culture and were granted French citizenship.
....
In 1934, a Nazi-incited pogrom in Constantine left 25 Jews dead and scores
injured.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, outsiders. The locals appear to have been tolerant, it was the Nazis who incited the trouble. This was hardly a uniquely Arab happening.

Yemen

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Yemen from the seventh century on the Jewish populations suffered the severest possible interpretation of the Charter of Omar. For about 4 centuries, the Jews suffered under the fierce fanatical edict of the most intolerant Islamic sects.

...
The Yemen Epistle by Rambam in which he commiserated with Yemen's Jewry and besought them to keep the faith, and in
1724 fanatical rulers ordered synagogues destroyed, and Jewish public prayers were forbidden. The Jews were exiled, many died from starvation and the survivors were ordered to settle in Mausa, but later, this order was annulled by a decree in 1781 due to the need of their skilled craftsmen. Jacob Sappir a Jerusalem writer describes Yemeni Jews in Yemen in 1886:
"The Arab natives have always considered the Jew unclean, but his blood for them was not considered unclean. They lay claims to all his belongings, and if he is unwilling, they employ force...The Jews live outside the town in dark dwellings like prison cells or caves out of fear...for the least offense, he is sentenced to outrageous fines, which he is quite unable to pay. In case of non-payment, he is put in chains and cruelly beaten every day. Before the punishment is inflicted, the Cadi[judge] addresses him in entle tones and urges him to change his faith and obtain a share of all the glory of this world and of the world beyond. His refusal is again regarded as penal obstinacy. On the other hand, it is not open to the Jew to prosecute a Muslim, as the Muslim by right of law can dispose of the life and the property of the Jew, and it is only to be regarded as an act of magnanimity if the Jews are allowed to live. The Jew is not admissible as a witness, nor
has his oath any validity.".
.....

Once again, not Palestinians.

renata

23rd October 2003, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Once again, not Palestinians.

Ah, I thought you and ssibal were discussing the reasons all the countries attacked Israel with the intentions of throwing Jews into the sea I had thought you were asking for evidence about history of Arab Jewish relations in the Middle East as a whole. It seemed you were saying the only reason was the creation of Israel, I wanted to show a little history. I see instead you were talking about only Palestine, and prefer to disregrard history of oppression of Jews from other Middle East countries prior to establishment of Israel. It is a common misconception that Jews lived terrificly well in the Middle East until naughty Zionists came along, I thought you were harboring under same. My mistake.

And, of course, you would disregard the 1929 Hebron riots and other things because it was the beginning of Zionism, although it was 20 years prior to establishment of Israel.

But, interestingly, according to your logic, any Palestinians or any Arabs could not possibly have ever oppressed Jews! During most of the relevant period, the land was either under the control of the Turkish Ottoman Empire or the British. Nice little escape hatch there.

a_unique_person

23rd October 2003, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by renata

Ah, when you said Arabs throw Jews into the sea I had thought you were asking for evidence about Arab Jewish relation in the Middle East as a whole. I see instead you were talking about only Palestine, and prefer to disregrard history of oppression of Jews from other Middle East countries prior to establishment of Israel. My mistake.

And, of course, you would disregard the 1929 Hebron riots and other things because it was the beginning of Zionism, although it was 20 years prior to establishment of Israel.

But, interestingly, according to your logic, Palestinians could not possibly have ever oppressed Jews! During most of the relevant period, the land was either under the control of the Turkish Ottoman Empire or the British. Nice little escape hatch there.

These are supposedly the people who have, according to Ed, been blood sucking inhuman vampires. All I was trying to do was demonstrate that they weren't, historically.

There was a long period of time when they were the majority, and Jews very much the minority. They had ample opportunity to get rid of the Jews by fair means or foul back then.

The only thing that would surprise me would be if there were no incidents between the Arabic Palestinians and Jews. All ethnic groups seem to have their problems from time to time.

However, you do seem to support, with your examples, my contention that it was the drive of Zionism that stirred things up.

Mycroft

23rd October 2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I have not seen any evidence of that.]

Then you need to read more.
Originally posted by a_unique_person [B]
Arabs are like the rowdy family. They will brawl amongst each other, and unite when one is attacked.

So what is your source for this special insight into Arabic culture?

Originally posted by a_unique_person The country that was taken was the one that the people of Palestine lived in. They got to keep their houses under the other rulers, at least, and their dignity. Under Israel they lost both.

I'm not familiar with that country. Can you tell me about it? When was it founded? What type of government did it have? What type of currency did it use?

a_unique_person

23rd October 2003, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

I'm not familiar with that country. Can you tell me about it? When was it founded? What type of government did it have? What type of currency did it use?

It wasn't Zionist.

Mycroft

23rd October 2003, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
However, you do seem to support, with your examples, my contention that it was the drive of Zionism that stirred things up.

Or it could be that with the leaving of the French and British, that was simply their first opportunity in a very long time. You know, there were other things happening in the Arabic world at the time.

a_unique_person

23rd October 2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Or it could be that with the leaving of the French and British, that was simply their first opportunity in a very long time. You know, there were other things happening in the Arabic world at the time.

There would have had no more defence against terror then than now.

Cleopatra

23rd October 2003, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Zionism is a political movement, not a religious one. And the aim of Zionism was to create a Jewish state in Palestine. However, this is not he Palestinians committing these acts.

No it's not only a political movement. The modern version of Zionism was political. Zionism started as a messianic movement.

Once again, not Palestinians.

I won't be tired to repeat that for the Arab world until the year 1967 Palestinians did not exist.

If unkind, I would suggest that fot the Arabs, Palestinians are as artificial as the State of Israel...

a_unique_person

23rd October 2003, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I won't be tired to repeat that for the Arab world until the year 1967 Palestinians didnot exist.

If unkind, I would suggest that fot the Arabs Palestinians are as artificial as the State of Israel...

The various tribes/groupings/dwellers of a geographic area certainly did exist. The process of imposing that construct of the modern world, the soveriegn state, upon the Arabs, was always going to have problems.

Cleopatra

23rd October 2003, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The various tribes/groupings/dwellers of a geographic area certainly did exist. The process of imposing that construct of the modern world, the soveriegn state, upon the Arabs, was always going to have problems.

I consider this a common mistake. Capel Dodger keeps repeating it.

None imposed anything to anybody! Those who talked about nationalism in their countries were people that they have studied in the West, they have realized that the game would be played by national states and the wanted that their nations would be part of that game.

I mean who could deny to the Arabs or to the Balkan countries some decades earlier the right to have a national state and on what basis?

The Arabic society was based on the tribal system and it seems that it still is. Even PLO is still ruled by families ( for those that they don't know this) . If the Arabs want to play a role in the future they'd better hurry to get over this system.

I have read something interesting about that ( in Open Democracy--of course I disagreed) about the way young Arabs see themselves and the future of Islam, AN@S mentioned something in another thread, when I find some time in the weekend I will start a thread about it.

a_unique_person

23rd October 2003, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I consider this a common mistake. Capel Dodger keeps repeating it.

None imposed anything to anybody! Those who talked about nationalism in their countries were people that they have studied in the West, they have realized that the game would be played by national states and the wanted that their nations would be part of that game.

History meant that the boundaries of a sovereign state was being imposed. As you say, those who grabbed the reigns of power first were in control.

However, much of the carving up was done by outside powers, and not necessarily along rational lines. Eg, the Kurds, a significant ethnic group, seem to have missed out on a country somehow.

I mean who could deny to the Arabs or to the Balkan countries some decades earlier the right to have a national state and on what basis?

The Arabic society was based on the tribal system and it seems that it still is. Even PLO is still ruled by families ( for those that they don't know this) . If the Arabs want to play a role in the future they'd better hurry to get over this system.

I have read something interesting about that ( in Open Democracy--of course I disagreed) about the way young Arabs see themselves and the future of Islam, AN@S mentioned something in another thread, when I find some time in the weekend I will start a thread about it.

Modernisation of the Arabs is happening, slowly. There are many Palestinians not happy with the PLO. Their voices are getting louder all the time. I just hope it is not Hamas who shouts loudest.

Mycroft

24th October 2003, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
However, much of the carving up was done by outside powers, and not necessarily along rational lines. Eg, the Kurds, a significant ethnic group, seem to have missed out on a country somehow.

Unlike the Palestinian-Arabs, who got that nation on the East side of the river.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Modernisation of the Arabs is happening, slowly.

Forward and back again. I understand that Iran was quite progresive under the Shaw.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There are many Palestinians not happy with the PLO. Their voices are getting louder all the time. I just hope it is not Hamas who shouts loudest.

Even if I don't share your optimism, you and I do agree sometimes!:)

a_unique_person

24th October 2003, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Unlike the Palestinian-Arabs, who got that nation on the East side of the river.

Who were left with the West Bank and Gaza, no reparations for their lost property, and settlements.

Forward and back again. I understand that Iran was quite progresive under the Shaw.

He was like a version of China, nice if you didn't question him, then his secret police would murder and torture you. Many Iranians liked the modernity, but saw the facism as too high a price to pay.

It was also one of the main spurs for the rejuvenation of Muslim fundamentalism. It was the fundies who led the charge against the Shah. Got them a lot of credibility, unfortunately.

Even if I don't share your optimism, you and I do agree sometimes!:)

Time will tell.

E.J.Armstrong

25th October 2003, 01:40 AM

originally posted by CapelDodger
You might get away with that in the US, but you'd have the law on you in the UK. And quite rightly so, in my opinion.
Very true. In the UK, the government seeks to treat everybody in a fair and equitable way under the law. I recommend every country in the world does the same.

E.J.Armstrong

25th October 2003, 01:56 AM

originally posted by CleopatraNone imposed anything to anybody!
Unfortunately Cleopatra has got her historical material wrong. For some actual facts, such as - 'The General Assembly approves the Partition Plan by a two-thirds majority, largely through the influence of the USA. Palestinian Jews and settlers, who make up less than a third of the population, accept the Plan, and all the Arab nations reject it. A civil war starts.'
see http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/eyetoeye/teachers/guidance/chron_right.html.

Scott

25th October 2003, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by A_U_P

Who were left with the West Bank and Gaza, no reparations for their lost property, and settlements.Lost property?

Palestinians abandoned the property--that the UN had given them--in 1948 when they thought Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Egypt would eliminate Israel. Israel wins.

In 1950, Jordon annexed the entire West Bank after the Palestinians decided not to create their own state.

In 1956, Israel occupies the Gaza strip after the Suez-Sinai War (Egypt attacked Israel from this little piece of real estate), but leaves it in a few months because of international pressure.

In 1967, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan again tried to annihilate Israel. But they lost--again--and Israel took control of the Gaza (from Egypt), the West Bank (from Jordan), and the Golan Hieghts (from Syria).

What land that was originally the Country--or State--of Palestine, or that otherwise originally governed by Palestinians does Israel occupy?

Scott

25th October 2003, 02:36 AM

MyCroft asked:

I'm not familiar with that country. Can you tell me about it? When was it founded? What type of government did it have? What type of currency did it use?

And A_U_P tried to answer with who it wasn't:

It wasn't Zionist. Well, then, who was it, A_U_P?

E.J.Armstrong

25th October 2003, 02:44 AM

originally posted by Scott
What land that was originally the Country--or State--of Palestine, or that otherwise originally governed by Palestinians does Israel occupy?
This might help.
'The UN General Assembly passes Resolution 194, which declares that Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes (on the condition of their willingness to live at peace with their neighbours) and that Israel should facilitate this at the earliest practicable date.

The United Nations Palestine Conciliation Committee (UNPCC) is established under Resolution 194 to facilitate the return or resettlement – and compensation of – Palestinian refugees based on their individual choices. However, after several years, the UNPCC cease to provide protection to Palestinian refugees. This is due, in large part, to Israel’s opposition to the return of refugees and also to the lack of international will to uphold basic principles of international law applicable to Palestinian refugees.'

From http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/eyetoeye/teachers/guidance/chron_right.html

Scott

25th October 2003, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
'The UN General Assembly passes Resolution 194, which declares that Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes (on the condition of their willingness to live at peace with their neighbours) and that Israel should facilitate this at the earliest practicable date.Key concepts in italics.

It still doesn't answer the question though.

a_unique_person

25th October 2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Scott
Key concepts in italics.

It still doesn't answer the question though.

From the Palestinian point of view, they are living under a military occupation. IIRC, Israel has never accepted deals like 194 that include a right of return.

CapelDodger

25th October 2003, 01:14 PM

from Cleopatra:
None imposed anything to anybody! Those who talked about nationalism in their countries were people that they have studied in the West, they have realized that the game would be played by national states and the wanted that their nations would be part of that game.
This is rather tangled. If they "realised that the game would be played by nation states" it was because those states had the power to impose the rules. Thus, imposition. And "... wanted their nations .." - without nationalism there were no nations. The borders of the "nations" that were created were dictated by the Great Powers, and the local conservative forces were the main backers of the concept. Many Western-educated Arabs were high on Pan-Arab Socialism from the 1920's.
The Arabic society was based on the tribal system and it seems that it still is. Even PLO is still ruled by families ( for those that they don't know this) . If the Arabs want to play a role in the future they'd better hurry to get over this system
Who could argue with that. But the solution is not necessarily the nation-state, which takes no account of this kind of small-grained society.
when I find some time in the weekend I will start a thread about it.
Alert me, and I will give it my fullest attention.

CapelDodger

25th October 2003, 01:20 PM

Hi Cleopatra:
This is the reason why Capel Dodger we, the Balkan and Middle Eastern mobs wanted to have a nation of our own; in order to resemble to the shiny, democratic, fair and royal nation of yours
Now Cleopatra, you know better than to assign a nation to me.

CapelDodger

25th October 2003, 01:45 PM

from Mycroft:
I know, but I don’t see the relevance. The fact is if you purchase rental property you have rights to that property, including the right to evict tenants and do something else with it. How the financing is arranged and how the title is held are irrelevant details.
Sure. And if I were renting an apartment and someone bought the building I was in, and evicted me, I might not feel kindly towards the new landowner. (I probably wouldn’t give it much thought. Being a renter implies that someday the landlord might decide not to rent to you anymore. Such is life.) I understand how someone might feel upset. What I don’t understand is how those feelings are expected to be maintained for years, decades, and transmitted through seven or eight generations.
So we've been right through the "they weren't there", "they moved there recently", "their masters ordered them to leave", "they left voluntarily", "they chose not to come back", "they sold their land to rosy-cheeked pioneers" progression. It's a classical series, I could have mapped it for you. Perhaps you've been along it before.

Seven or eight generations? You're not very hopeful for the future, are you? Say, three so far. I'll present you with an anectode, by way of signing off from this thread. A good friend of mine, who left Israel was he was twelve, explained to me how much the Arabs hate Jews. He lived for a while in a village west of Jerusalem. The village was in the valley, and there was an Arab village up on the hill. The Arabs mostly worked on the farms in the valley. My friend got on well with the Arab boys and used to hang out with them. Then, one evening, they were sat out on the hill looking down on the village and the Arab boys began pointing out their family farms down in the valley. "That's my father's house", "That's our laand there", and so on. "They were so sure that they were going to drive us out one day they'd already divided up the land!" he said. "I was their friend, and I was sitting there, but they talked of it quite openly!". It had never occurred to him - and it took him a little time to get his head around the fact - that the Arabs hadn't chosen to live up on the hill instead of on the good land. What they were pointing out was the land that had been their fathers' and grandfathers' before they were driven up onto the hill to work as labourers for the Jewish Israelis below. He left Israel soon after, but always carried with him this image of the cold, calculated determination to drive the Jews out and take their land - and how terrible a thing it was to want to do that.

I don't suppose you'll see the relevance.

TillEulenspiegel

25th October 2003, 03:56 PM

Well once again I watched the news (10-25-03 6.30 EST) and I was plesently suprized. The TV showed a mass demonstration in Israel by Israeli's protesting the use of attack gunships and missles to "eliminate terror"in the occupied territories. To be sure it wasn't millions in number but polls show altho the majority of Israelis support Sharon, a growing majority disagree with this particular policey.

Scott

25th October 2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

From the Palestinian point of view, they are living under a military occupation. IIRC, Israel has never accepted deals like 194 that include a right of return. And yet you still didn't--and won't--answer the question.

Scott

25th October 2003, 04:09 PM

And regarding 194 Israel, rejects it because it was the Arab states that started the war in 1948 that aksed the Palestinians to leave the area.

The refugeee problem is the Arab states fault.

Mycroft

25th October 2003, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
So we've been right through the "they weren't there", "they moved there recently", "their masters ordered them to leave", "they left voluntarily", "they chose not to come back", "they sold their land to rosy-cheeked pioneers" progression. It's a classical series, I could have mapped it for you. Perhaps you've been along it before.

How very nice of you to decide my arguments for me. While I’m sure you only have the best motives, I’ll have to reserve that right for myself, but thank you anyway.

Yes, I’ve seen these arguments before. I thought I might see something new from you, but I haven’t yet. The part where you condemn the Zionists for the capitalist crime of evicting tenants from purchased land while decrying their socialist tendencies in the same breath is uncommon, but not unique.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Seven or eight generations? You're not very hopeful for the future, are you? Say, three so far.

A valid point. I was counting from the time of the earliest days of Zionism with the assumption that Arabic women have their first children at an early age. My own step-mother, for example, was married for the first time at the age of 14 and had her children shortly after.

Time is an important consideration. In discussing Zionism and the Israeli-Arabic conflict it’s important to understand that we are discussing a span of history of a century or more. In that century, the world has seen dramatic and violent upheavals. The Great Depression, two world wars, and dramatic shifts in political and social thought. Historical context is important.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I'll present you with an anectode, …
I don't suppose you'll see the relevance.
I won’t dismiss it as irrelevant, but there is one point I would like to clarify before I share my thoughts on it.

It had never occurred to him - and it took him a little time to get his head around the fact - that the Arabs hadn't chosen to live up on the hill instead of on the good land

Was it you who convinced this man of this alternate interpretation of his story?

a_unique_person

25th October 2003, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Scott
And regarding 194 Israel, rejects it because it was the Arab states that started the war in 1948 that aksed the Palestinians to leave the area.

The refugeee problem is the Arab states fault.

This popular piece of logic is a total non-sequitor. If a person flees a warzone, why does that mean he loses his property in that area. As Capel-Dodger has shown, the event was more likely an example of ethnic cleansing.

Scott

26th October 2003, 12:25 AM

a_u_p speaks, yet he still doesn't answer the question...This popular piece of logic is a total non-sequitor. If a person flees a warzone, why does that mean he loses his property in that area. As Capel-Dodger has shown, the event was more likely an example of ethnic cleansing.How did you determine "that popular piece of logic is a total non-sequitur"? History shows the Arabs asked the Palestinians to leave on the promise that they'd give it back when they were finished with the evil Zionist occupiers.

Do you have a new definition for non-sequitur that Webster doesn't know about yet?

Let's follow your logic to it's logical conclusion...

If the Arabs had run the Israelies out in 1948, 1956, 1967 or 1973, is it your position that the Israelies could have come right back and got their homes back?

Another question...Why didn't Jordan give the West Bank to the Palestinians when they annexed it in 1950?

And I agree with your synopsis of Capel-Dodger. The Arabs told the Palestinians to get out of the area so they could cleans it of the Jewish ethnicity.

a_unique_person

26th October 2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Scott
a_u_p speaks, yet he still doesn't answer the question...How did you determine "that popular piece of logic is a total non-sequitur"? History shows the Arabs asked the Palestinians to leave on the promise that they'd give it back when they were finished with the evil Zionist occupiers.

Do you have a new definition for non-sequitur that Webster doesn't know about yet?

Let's follow your logic to it's logical conclusion...

If the Arabs had run the Israelies out in 1948, 1956, 1967 or 1973, is it your position that the Israelies could have come right back and got their homes back?

Another question...Why didn't Jordan give the West Bank to the Palestinians when they annexed it in 1950?

And I agree with your synopsis of Capel-Dodger. The Arabs told the Palestinians to get out of the area so they could cleans it of the Jewish ethnicity.

smart ar**. They were forced to flee, or fled a war. I have never heard anything so ridiculous as the idea that you would flee so they can kill all the Jews. How were they going to kill them? With a nuke.

One of the most commons sites of war is civilians fleeing one.

Scott

26th October 2003, 02:10 AM

Again, a_u_p, you refuse to answer the question MyCroft posed to you several days ago.

Anyway...

They were forced to flee, or fled a war. I have never heard anything so ridiculous as the idea that you would flee so they can kill all the Jews. How were they going to kill them? With a nuke.Forced? Where did I say "forced"?

I said "told." You spin it to "force" for your own reasons...

In any event, you think it's ridiculous, so...

"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated between our call to them to leave. Only a few months separated between our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return."
Haled al Azm, Syrian Prime Minister, 1948 and 1949

"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."
Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949

"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."
Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183

"The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies."
Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949

"We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir Am Nakbah ("The Secret Behind the Disaster") by Nimr el Hawari, Nazareth, 1952

"Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."
Habib Issa, Secretary General of the Arab League (Azzam Pasha's successor), in the newspaper Al Hoda, June 8, 1951

Five (5) armies attacked Isreal, just a day after it declared its independence. Israel didn't have an air force, artillary, tanks... How hard should it have been to defeat the Israelies? Not hard, a nuke shouldn't have been needed, after all there were only 700,000 total Jewish in Israel at the time, surrounded by 27 million Arabs.

Cleopatra

26th October 2003, 02:41 AM

Scott

I pity you. You provided some facts that show that Palestinians are equally responsible for not having a state now.
They rejected the partitition plan because they thought that they would take care of Jews...

Be prepared to receive anecdotes as replies :)

a_unique_person

26th October 2003, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by Scott
Again, a_u_p, you refuse to answer the question MyCroft posed to you several days ago.

Anyway...

Forced? Where did I say "forced"?

I said "told." You spin it to "force" for your own reasons...

In any event, you think it's ridiculous, so...

"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated between our call to them to leave. Only a few months separated between our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return."
Haled al Azm, Syrian Prime Minister, 1948 and 1949

"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."
Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949

"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."
Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183

"The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies."
Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949

"We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir Am Nakbah ("The Secret Behind the Disaster") by Nimr el Hawari, Nazareth, 1952

"Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."
Habib Issa, Secretary General of the Arab League (Azzam Pasha's successor), in the newspaper Al Hoda, June 8, 1951

Five (5) armies attacked Isreal, just a day after it declared its independence. Israel didn't have an air force, artillary, tanks... How hard should it have been to defeat the Israelies? Not hard, a nuke shouldn't have been needed, after all there were only 700,000 total Jewish in Israel at the time, surrounded by 27 million Arabs.

You are saying that war refugees, once they flee battle, lose their rights to the property they own? I don't recall that that is any legal basis for that view.

Could you please provide some sources for the quotes you provide. I would hate to think you dig all of them up from Camera.

The idea that a victorious army is entitled to the spoils of war is a barbaric concept, one I had hoped died with the Nazis.

a_unique_person

26th October 2003, 03:49 AM

April 9th, 1948, The Stern Gang carries out the terrorist raid on Deir Yassin, tagetting and killing men, women and children. The aim of the raid was to induce the Arabs in surrounding villages to flee in fear. They were successful, with entire villages fleeing.

This was before the dates you are giving.

In response to more terrorism from militant Zionists, (they thought it not prudent to engage in such acts during WWII, but to wait till it was over), the British withdrew their forces. After the withdrawal of the last forces David Ben-Gurion declared Israel a State.

There may have been more Arabs surrounding the Jews in terms of population, but in terms of men under arms engaged in the conflict, Israel had a clear advantage.

The Israeli army was fighting under a unified command, engaged in all out war, the Arabs were engaged as separate entities, which they were, trying to defend the Palestinians. They only occupied the areas that were specified in the mandate.

Within three months of the outbreak of hostilities, over 1/4 million Palestinians were living as refugess, fleeing war or driven from their homes.

Clearly, the ethnic cleansing was well in train, just three months after the declaration of Independence, and before the dates you have quoted. Civilians, including women and children, were fleeing in terror and being attacked by armed forces.

Count Bernadotte, who had done much to help Jews escape persecution and the death chambers of the Nazis, came up with a compromise solution that involved the creation of Palestinian and Jewish States.

For this he was assasinated by the Stern Gang.

Cleopatra

26th October 2003, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

This is rather tangled. If they "realised that the game would be played by nation states" it was because those states had the power to impose the rules. Thus, imposition. And "... wanted their nations .." - without nationalism there were no nations. The borders of the "nations" that were created were dictated by the Great Powers, and the local conservative forces were the main backers of the concept. Many Western-educated Arabs were high on Pan-Arab Socialism from the 1920's.

Pan-Arab Socialism?

I must have overestimated your knowledge about the Arab nationalism, I apologize.

The Arab nationalism dates back in the 18th ce, not as an idea that was expressed through political movements but as a question about the origin of the Arab identity in comparison with the world of the West. The Arabic societies of the 18th ce were totally unwilling to change lifestyles that dated centuries so, these movements faded.

As a political movement the Arab nationalism was born during the two decades before WW I .

Talking about Arab nationalism is rather wrong for the reason I will explain and bringing as an argument the marginal ideas of Pan-Arab socialism to demonstrate that nationalism was imposed to the Arab people is just funny.

It’s wrong to talk about an Arab movement. We must talk instead about various national movements in the Arab world that they were born in order to give answers to different questions.

The Turkish nationalism for example was created as a reaction to the augmenting pressures from Europe. As the Christians nations defected one by one from the Empire, the Turkish nationalism was coloured by the Islamic tradition but during the years of AbdullHamit, the alliance between the Throne and the Turkish nomenclature collapsed so the idea of creating a Turkish nation appeared.

Where is the imposition? Don’t underestimate the intelligence of the Arab world Capel Dodger those people were capable to conceive ideas in favour of their interests you know.

For the rest of the Arab World, especially for Middle East, the idea of nationalism was created among the educated circles of the Muslims of Syria ( especially Damascus that was the centre of this movement) and the few Christians of Lebanon and Syria. The roots of the Arabic nationalism of Middle East could be traced to the revival of the Arabic past and especially to the first period of the Islamic History that was dominated by the Arabs. The Arabic Nationalism in ME turned into a political movement only after 1908 and the movement of the Young Turks.

Yet, in the ME they didn't talk about independent Arab nations. Their concern was under which circumstances the ottoman Muslim community could continue its existence.

The Egyptian, Tunisian and Algerian nationalism that appeared the same period were quite different in concept. These three entities had issues to resolve with the European powers but still they weren't talking about countries. I can talk about those countries for hours but they are not our subjects here.

What we need to remember is that the "evil of nationalism" [ it's evil of course just because you say so...] wasn't imposed. It was an idea that was born and flourished and yes in a certain historical period was used by the European Empires.

Your approach is at least simplistic and I am rather offended of behalf of the Middle Eastern people. It’s the western racist mentality that want us retarded and unable take decisions of our own. People like you consider every progress the people of ME have made an imposition from the West.

You take for granted that Arabs are idiots and retarded. You are wrong.

Who could argue with that. But the solution is not necessarily the nation-state, which takes no account of this kind of small-grained society.

I am sorry but could you explain me what makes you believe that you are entitled to decide and criticize what other nations want?

I will remind you that judging things from your house in Britain and criticizing people that live miles away is a rather common tactic.

I believe though that it's totally inappropriate for somebody that considers himself smart and educated :)

Scott

26th October 2003, 07:30 PM

Still refusing to answer the MyCroft question a_u_p?

One can logically conclude that your refusal to answer means that you're either afraid of, or refuse to accept, what the answer is. The answer will make you have to look hard at the beliefs that you hold, and realize that they are in fact on very, very unsteady ground.

It's OK though, I was once in your shoes. I believed the same BS you do now. (I'm serious).

You are saying that war refugees, once they flee battle, lose their rights to the property they own?No, I'm saying that they abandoned their homes at the urging of the other Arab nations. I disagree with the "refugee" status of the Palestinians as well.

They abandoned their homes at the request of other Arabs, so those Arabs could stage a war from the abandoned homes.

So yes, my opinion in this case is that to the victor go the spoils.

However, Israel doesn't agree with me and the "refugees" that lost their homes can return when they collectively sign a peace agreement.

Tell the class, a_u_p, which group refuses to sign a peace agreement?

And every single time peace is close at hand, which group steps up the terror on innocent civilians minding their own business in a deli, a night club, or just riding a bus, in an effort to derail that peace?

Who assasinated Sadat because he dared make peace with Israel?

Could you please provide some sources for the quotes you provide. I would hate to think you dig all of them up from Camera.The references to all the quotes are given in italics afterwards. You can find them all over the internet or at your local library. Here's one to get you started The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, Part 1 written in 1973. (Note: he's also known as Khaled Al-Azm)

I assure you that not one quote came from Camera.

I would also encourage you to check the sources on Morris' diatribes if your reading those. You might find that he has a nasty habit of changing words and such, because he hopes that just by allegedly quoting insider sources, and providing the notes people will believe him--the sad part is they do.

The idea that a victorious army is entitled to the spoils of war is a barbaric concept, one I had hoped died with the Nazis.So now you're going to equate the Jews with the Nazis?

And, the commies in North Korea gave back all the land that they grabbed up?

And the North Vietnamese gave up all the land they grabbed up?

And the Jordainians gave back all the land they grabbed up?

And the Iragis gave the Kuwaitis their land back?

Do you, a_u_p, honestly believe that the Arabs would give the Jewish their homes back if they had won (or win) any war?

So, obviously, it didn't die out with the Nazis, did it?

Weak, weak, weak.

(I'm curious, and I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but do you believe the Jewish Holocaust happened during WWII?)

The Stern Gang--blah, blah, blah--This was before the dates you are giving.I ain't sayin' the massacre was right, but I do notice you have a tedency to not tell the whole story. I'm not going to tell the whole story here, but you overlooked (or left out?) out a $h!t load of details in an attempt to stay on that shaky branch. You know, all the stuff that led up to the attack...

First, you are correct, the Deir Yassin massacre did take place before the "recognized start" of the 1948 war to "free Palestine from the Zionists." Remember, this was the war where Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League claimed: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

(Of course, he was talking about massacring Jews, so what he said is OK.)

But, the Arab Liberation Army (Palestinians and other Arab volunteers) were attacking Jewish communities and Jewish traffic on the roads for several months leading up to the massacre. The first large scale attack happened on January 9, 1948, and by Feb. '48, the Brits said there were so many Arabs in the area, they didn't have the strength to run them out.

The Deir Yassin massacre occured during Jewish attempts to break the siege of Jerusalem by Arab forces.

Arabs cutting off individual Jewish settlements. The seige on Jerusalem, cutting off Tel-Aviv. Maybe a little battle on March 27, 1948 where Arabs ambushed a Jewish Defense Force (JDF) convoy. The subsequent Red Cross investigation revelaed that the people massacred in the ambush had "their heads and sexual organs carefully mutilated" by the Arabs. Diary of Jacques De Reynier, 27 March 1948

The Stern Group and Irgun were groups of non-government supported guerillas. The Jewish Agency called the Stern Group was a dissident group, and they were rivals of the JDF. Stern and the Irgun asked for approval to attack Deir Yassin from the JDF, and the JDF initially said, "no." A short time later they changed their minds.

Why?

I don't know, but "according to most insider accounts, instructions were given to minimize casualties, some guerillas nonetheless anticipated inciting panic throughout Arab Palestine by their actions in Deir Yassin." Dan Kurzman, Geneis 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War, 1970, p.139

Militarily, the massacre wasn't supposed to be a massacre, the Stren's and Irguns did that on their own and without approval of the JDF.

Now, why don't Arab massacres of Jewish citizens don't seem to bother you?

a_unique_person

26th October 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Scott

No, I'm saying that they abandoned their homes at the urging of the other Arab nations. I disagree with the "refugee" status of the Palestinians as well.

They abandoned their homes at the request of other Arabs, so those Arabs could stage a war from the abandoned homes.

So yes, my opinion in this case is that to the victor go the spoils.

Yet you refuse to acknowledge that there was an active program of 'ethnic cleansing' even before the war started, and was active when it did start.

However, Israel doesn't agree with me and the "refugees" that lost their homes can return when they collectively sign a peace agreement.

One of the major sticking points with a peace treaty is that Israel will not give a right of return. When it is claimed that Arafat turned down a treaty that gave him 98% of what he wanted, it did not include a right of return.

Tell the class, a_u_p, which group refuses to sign a peace agreement?

They are both holding out for the best deal. As I have already pointed out right of return is not being offered.

And every single time peace is close at hand, which group steps up the terror on innocent civilians minding their own business in a deli, a night club, or just riding a bus, in an effort to derail that peace?

Who assasinated Sadat because he dared make peace with Israel?

Extremists. Egypt is still at peace with Israel.

The references to all the quotes are given in italics afterwards. You can find them all over the internet or at your local library. Here's one to get you started The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, Part 1 written in 1973. (Note: he's also known as Khaled Al-Azm)

I assure you that not one quote came from Camera.

I would also encourage you to check the sources on Morris' diatribes if your reading those. You might find that he has a nasty habit of changing words and such, because he hopes that just by allegedly quoting insider sources, and providing the notes people will believe him--the sad part is they do.

Morris?

So now you're going to equate the Jews with the Nazis?

And, the commies in North Korea gave back all the land that they grabbed up?

And the North Vietnamese gave up all the land they grabbed up?

And the Jordainians gave back all the land they grabbed up?

And the Iragis gave the Kuwaitis their land back?

Do you, a_u_p, honestly believe that the Arabs would give the Jewish their homes back if they had won (or win) any war?

You don't win land in a war, that's the point. WTF has north Korea got to do with this?

So, obviously, it didn't die out with the Nazis, did it?

Weak, weak, weak.

(I'm curious, and I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but do you believe the Jewish Holocaust happened during WWII?)

No, it is a huge beat up. Nowhere near that many Jews were killed, if at all.

I ain't sayin' the massacre was right, but I do notice you have a tedency to not tell the whole story. I'm not going to tell the whole story here, but you overlooked (or left out?) out a $h!t load of details in an attempt to stay on that shaky branch. You know, all the stuff that led up to the attack...

First, you are correct, the Deir Yassin massacre did take place before the "recognized start" of the 1948 war to "free Palestine from the Zionists." Remember, this was the war where Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League claimed: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the
Crusades."

Have you been listening to any of the Zionist rhetoric lately. The fact is, when the war started, the Arabs were in the borders of the UN partition.

(Of course, he was talking about massacring Jews, so what he said is OK.)

But, the Arab Liberation Army (Palestinians and other Arab volunteers) were attacking Jewish communities and Jewish traffic on the roads for several months leading up to the massacre. The first large scale attack happened on January 9, 1948, and by Feb. '48, the Brits said there were so many Arabs in the area, they didn't have the strength to run them out.

The Deir Yassin massacre occured during Jewish attempts to break the siege of Jerusalem by Arab forces.

Arabs cutting off individual Jewish settlements. The seige on Jerusalem, cutting off Tel-Aviv. Maybe a little battle on March 27, 1948 where Arabs ambushed a Jewish Defense Force (JDF) convoy. The subsequent Red Cross investigation revelaed that the people massacred in the ambush had "their heads and sexual organs carefully mutilated" by the Arabs. Diary of Jacques De Reynier, 27 March 1948

The Palestinians knew what was coming, their country was about to be taken from them, and fought to prevent it. The massacre was gruesome, but of combatants.

The Stern Group and Irgun were groups of non-government supported guerillas. The Jewish Agency called the Stern Group was a dissident group, and they were rivals of the JDF. Stern and the Irgun asked for approval to attack Deir Yassin from the JDF, and the JDF initially said, "no." A short time later they changed their minds.

Why?

I don't know, but "according to most insider accounts, instructions were given to minimize casualties, some guerillas nonetheless anticipated inciting panic throughout Arab Palestine by their actions in Deir Yassin." Dan Kurzman, Geneis 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War, 1970, p.139

Militarily, the massacre wasn't supposed to be a massacre, the Stren's and Irguns did that on their own and without approval of the JDF.

There wasn't supposed to be a massacre, so they sent in the guys with the reputation for blood thirsty terrorism. Makes sense to me.

Now, why don't Arab massacres of Jewish citizens don't seem to bother you?

I am not saying they don't bother me. The whole shambles bothers me. What I am saying is that the predominant view, that Palestinians are just blood thirsty animals and Jews are suffering for no reason at all is just a fantasy.

a_unique_person

26th October 2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Scott
Still refusing to answer the MyCroft question a_u_p?

One can logically conclude that your refusal to answer means that you're either afraid of, or refuse to accept, what the answer is. The answer will make you have to look hard at the beliefs that you hold, and realize that they are in fact on very, very unsteady ground.

I thought I had already answered this before. The country belonged to those who lived there. Creating a "Jewish State" was an act of religious bigotry, as has since been shown to be true. All the fears the inhabitants have had have been shown ot be true. They have been ethnically cleansed, rendered powerless and marginalised.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=300581&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Reuven ("Ruby") Rivlin is unwilling to reveal the
names of the settlements that Ariel Sharon intends
to evacuate. But he is willing to say how many:
17. And he is willing to say what they have in
common: They are located on the connection points
between one Sharonist canton and the next. And he
is willing to reveal when Sharon decided on the
evacuation: at the time he assumed the post of
prime minister. When he understood that Israel's
future for generations would be decided during his
term of office. When he understood that there was
no choice but to separate. When he understood that
even though he promised repeatedly that he would
not remove even one settlement, there would be no
choice. Sharon understood that there will be no
choice because it is essential to reach an
agreement that will bring about a situation in
which the Palestinians do not live in our midst
and we do not live in their midst.

Mycroft

26th October 2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Yet you refuse to acknowledge that there was an active program of 'ethnic cleansing' even before the war started, and was active when it did start.

You’re always so vague on details. Can you describe this program to me?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
One of the major sticking points with a peace treaty is that Israel will not give a right of return. When it is claimed that Arafat turned down a treaty that gave him 98% of what he wanted, it did not include a right of return.
Even worse, it gave him what he didn’t want. Peace.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They are both holding out for the best deal. As I have already pointed out right of return is not being offered.

Yes. Israel is holding out for actual peace, not just empty promises. The Palestinian-Arabs are holding out for an offer of all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Extremists. Egypt is still at peace with Israel.

When 70% of the Palestinian-Arabs support suicide bombing and 59% say they would favor continued struggle against Israel even if they achieved total control of the West Band and the Gaza strip, is it still correct to say that the violence is perpetuated by extremists? Extremist, I think, implies that their views are outside the norm, represented by only a tiny portion of the population. Clearly that is not the case.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, it is a huge beat up. Nowhere near that many Jews were killed, if at all.

I’m not familiar with the term “beat up” in that context. Is that ausie slang for exaggeration? Can you elaborate on these views?

Scott

27th October 2003, 04:30 AM

Yet you refuse to acknowledge that there was an active program of 'ethnic cleansing' even before the war started, and was active when it did start.

BS, I gave you the information, but the only ethnic cleansing you see is when Jews do it.

I'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. In fact, I agree with you, there was an ethnic cleansing going on before the war, Arabs were trying to cleanse the land of the Jewish.

You provide some information about renegade Jews "ethnically cleansing" Arabs, but you refuse to believe Arabs started the whole mess in spite of the historical evidence.

In 70 AD, the Romans tried to ethnically cleans the Jews then. Now that I think about it, following your spin of "right of return," why is the Dome of the Rock still sitting on Temple Mound? Shouldn't the Muslims give that area back over to the Jewish, after all the Jewish had it first?

When it is claimed that Arafat turned down a treaty that gave him 98% of what he wanted, it did not include a right of return.

Your basis is incorrect, non-the-less, Arafat's version of r-o-r is all Palestinians living world wide returning to the West Bank and eliminating Israel from the face of the earth.

Would you advise any country to make a peace deal that guarantees their destruction?

In spite of everything Arafat has said publicly, do you believe he wants to live at peace with Israel?

One of the major sticking points with a peace treaty is that Israel will not give a right of return.

Yes, they will. all Arabs displaced by the previous wars will have the r-o-r. One of the the problems we've already discussed, they have to collectively sign a peace agreement and they refuse. The other problem is 4.5 million other Arabs have decided they need the right of return to a land they never lived in.

Morris?

Benny Morris, revionist historian of Israel. You'd like his stuff.

You don't win land in a war, that's the point.

Yes, you do. You either win it or take it, but either way you must occupy the land to win the war. If you choose to give it back afterwards then that's OK, if you don't, oh well. It's called victory.

[b]No, it is a huge beat up. Nowhere near that many Jews were killed, if at all.

OK

[b]Have you been listening to any of the Zionist rhetoric lately. The fact is, when the war started, the Arabs were in the borders of the UN partition.

When did I say they were outside the borders?

Of course they were in the borders of the partition, they were ethnically cleansing that area of Jews.

The Palestinians knew what was coming, their country was about to be taken from them, and fought to prevent it. The massacre was gruesome, but of combatants.

Dang, you don't even know the details of the examples you use to make your arguments. Somewhere between 102 and 250 (depending on your source) Palestinians were killed in the massacre, most were not combatants.

What I am saying is that the predominant view, that Palestinians are just blood thirsty animals and Jews are suffering for no reason at all is just a fantasy.

That's your spin on the predominant view.

The militant Palestinians (starting with arafat) could care less about the Jewish, as long as them Jewish folk ain't living in Israel. But as long as they're living in Israel, by God they're going to kill them--prove that they're not.

In your attempt to answer MyCroft's question, your said "I thought I had already answered this before."

No, you didn't, and you still haven't.

Scott

27th October 2003, 04:30 AM

oops, double post

CapelDodger

27th October 2003, 10:57 AM

From Cleopatra:

... Loads of combative stuff.

Weren't you going to introduce this "nature of Arab society" subject in another thread? Briefly, in referring to pan-Arab socialism I specifically referred to Western-educated Arabs in the 1920's, after the Russian Revolution and at a time when many colonial students were impressed by socialism. And that socialism was anti-imperial and anti-nationalist. Also, when I say something is "not necessarily" the right option, I'm hardly making dictatorial decisions for other people.

from Mycroft:
How very nice of you to decide my arguments for me.
It was a resume of where you've already been.

Cleopatra

27th October 2003, 11:13 AM

Capel Dodger

I had to reply to what you posted here first :)

Also, before starting another thread I want to address a couple of remarks you have made in your previous posts regarding the responsibility of the Jews and the Holocaust.

I am sure you didn't believe that I'd leave something like that unanswered...

I mean, can you imagine Lord Kenneth at school while his teacher asks him who was responsible for the Holocaust and Lord Kenneth replies : " Chaim Weitzmann" just because he is reading your posts?

Nope, I have to address this first but yes I will start another thread about an article I read in Open Democracy...

Patience Iago.... Patience!

As to the issue of the Pan-Arab Socialism, according to my knowledge it was a rather marginal movement but your remark put me into thoughts because the early anti-nationalist socialism has very few things in common with what we know today as anti-nationalist socialism.

How many times socialists changed their mind about nationalism? I can count at least three, correct me if I am wrong.

CapelDodger

27th October 2003, 01:06 PM

Hi Cleopatra:
How many times socialists changed their mind about nationalism? I can count at least three, correct me if I am wrong.
Is that count prompted by the "Third International "? They may change their minds about nationalism but socialism is still anti-nationalist.

Cleopatra

27th October 2003, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

Is that count prompted by the "Third International "

Give me some credit Capel Dodger I might not be as smart as you are but I have graduated high school :)

They may change their minds about nationalism but socialism is still anti-nationalist.

Which socialism? Zionists were socialists too as you know.

Tony

27th October 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Which socialism? Zionists were socialists too as you know.

So were Hitler and Saddam Hussien, where they "anti-nationalists" too?

CapelDodger

27th October 2003, 01:28 PM

Can't ... stop ... myself ...

from Mycroft:
The part where you condemn the Zionists for the capitalist crime of evicting tenants from purchased land while decrying their socialist tendencies in the same breath is uncommon, but not unique.
Why do you assume I am "decrying" when I was simply describing ? Not everybody makes the same value judgements as you do. Certainly not socialists, and certainly not me. And not everybody considers the ownership and control of property by the state - which is what purchase by the Land Agency meant - as capitalist. In fact, damn few, I'd venture.

Evicting tenants is not a "capitalist crime"; it's been going on for a lot longer than capitalism. It's an exercise of power (ownership is a derivative of that). It is therefore always self-seeking. It may be justified (removal of a parasite or public nuisance, for instance) and it may not (clearing out people not of a particular race in order to impose a new social and /or political order, for instance). (That's "justified" in my opinion, of course. Not everybody shares my value judgements.)

Cleopatra

27th October 2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Can't ... stop ... myself ...

This is what distinguishes Crusaders, Capel Dodger :)

CapelDodger

27th October 2003, 01:39 PM

Hi Cleopatra:
Which socialism? Zionists were socialists too as you know.
I knew you'd spot that. "Statists" is a better term, but I've just been trying to press some other people's buttons and one has to use their language.

(Must be off; time to throw another cat on the fire and toast some crumpets.)

Cleopatra

27th October 2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by CapelDodger

I knew you'd spot that. "Statists" is a better term, but I've just been trying to press some other people's buttons and one has to use their language.

"Statists"??? "Statists" ???
Althought I have promised myself to refrain from using this smile I think that there is nothing more appropriate than that : :rolleyes:

I have another theory !!! You see, those evil Zionists disguised as socialists in order to decay the movement of Pan-arab socialism from within! So, Zionists are responsible for the collapse of this movement before it was even born!

Next time post a warning when the trolling time starts, please.

a_unique_person

27th October 2003, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Scott

BS, I gave you the information, but the only ethnic cleansing you see is when Jews do it.

I'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. In fact, I agree with you, there was an ethnic cleansing going on before the war, Arabs were trying to cleanse the land of the Jewish.

You provide some information about renegade Jews "ethnically cleansing" Arabs, but you refuse to believe Arabs started the whole mess in spite of the historical evidence.

In 70 AD, the Romans tried to ethnically cleans the Jews then. Now that I think about it, following your spin of "right of return," why is the Dome of the Rock still sitting on Temple Mound? Shouldn't the Muslims give that area back over to the Jewish, after all the Jewish had it first?

Are we going to have the whole debate of the whole history of the Middle East in one thread? I'm not, good luck

a_unique_person

27th October 2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

You’re always so vague on details. Can you describe this program to me?

Beat-up = exaggeration.

Here is a site that may interest you.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/

Cleopatra

27th October 2003, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Beat-up = exaggeration.

And what does blacklash mean?? :p

a_unique_person

28th October 2003, 03:13 AM

Cleo

it is interesting that you should blame Europe for wanting to send all the Jews to Israel, and that that is the reason for supporting the creation of Palestine.

In fact, there is evidence that Europe, and particularly Britain, wanted a fair Arab/Jewish solution for Palestine. However, it was the US that was pushing for the divisive result. For two reasons.

1) Pressure from it's Jewish constituence for the creation of Israel.
2) The desire to put the refugees from Europe somewhere else.

How did it manage to manipulate this? By threatening England with a refusal to come up with the loans it had promised for rebuilding.

Cleopatra

28th October 2003, 04:41 AM

The Americano-israeli romance started after 1967.

The theory that USA threatened UK because of Israel is over the top. You are antagonizing Capel Dodger now in... in what ever it is what he does here...

edited to add:

No-pun intented!

Mycroft

28th October 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Beat-up = exaggeration.

Here is a site that may interest you.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/

Oh boy, David Irving. How come it doesn't surprise me you're a fan? Are you also a fan of Ernst Zundal? Do you have the CODOH and IHR websites bookmarked?

a_unique_person

28th October 2003, 03:27 PM

Do you have a link to Ernst? I have been trying to find his site, I have heard it is a good one.

a_unique_person

28th October 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The Americano-israeli romance started after 1967.

The theory that USA threatened UK because of Israel is over the top. You are antagonizing Capel Dodger now in... in what ever it is what he does here...

edited to add:

No-pun intented!

The creation certainly involved the US. It was one of the first countries to recognise Israel, on the 15th.

The Marshall Plan loans to Britain were to be terminated if Britain allowed the Arabs to receive arms shipments and supported the Arabs.

Mycroft

28th October 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The creation certainly involved the US. It was one of the first countries to recognise Israel, on the 15th.

The Marshall Plan loans to Britain were to be terminated if Britain allowed the Arabs to receive arms shipments and supported the Arabs.
From the text of the Marshall Plan Speech
…Any government which maneuvers to block the recovery of other countries cannot expect help from us. Furthermore, governments, political parties or groups which seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit there from politically or otherwise will encounter the opposition of the United States.

http://www.marshallfoundation.org/about_gcm/marshall_plan.htm#text_of_the_speech

Yes, I can see how arming the Middle East would be against the principles of the Marshal Plan.

a_unique_person

28th October 2003, 07:45 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…Any government which maneuvers to block the recovery of other countries cannot expect help from us. Furthermore, governments, political parties or groups which seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit there from politically or otherwise will encounter the opposition of the United States.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a pretty open ended value judgement there. Were the Zionists and their supporters causing misery to the Arabs or vice-versa.

JamesM

29th October 2003, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Do you have a link to Ernst? I have been trying to find his site, I have heard it is a good one.
:roll: Stop it!

Cleopatra

29th October 2003, 01:01 AM

Time for an apology to AUP because I left a comment against him unanswered.

I saw Mycroft's comment about AUP and Irving last night but I was too absorbed by reading the debate in the "Second Amendment" thread and I forgot it.

AUP is not a Holocaust denier I put my signature on a blank paper about that: in a case of "an emergency" he would be one of the Righteous Among the Nations.

Mycroft

29th October 2003, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Time for an apology to AUP because I left a comment against him unanswered.

I saw Mycroft's comment about AUP and Irving last night but I was too absorbed by reading the debate in the "Second Amendment" thread and I forgot it.

AUP is not a Holocaust denier I put my signature on a blank paper about that: in a case of "an emergency" he would be one of the Righteous Among the Nations.

I'm somewhat puzzled by your apology. I haven’t seen anything to lead me to believe that AUP isn’t capable of answering for himself, nor that he’s unaware of the impression he creates. If he wants people to think him a holocaust denier, aren’t you doing him a disservice by saying otherwise?

Cleopatra

29th October 2003, 02:48 AM

I think that AUP is tired in repeating the same thing.

I believe that he is basing his criticism to Israel to anecdotes, prejudices and assumptions but this at the end reflects badly only on him.

I have told him many times that none can take his criticism seriously but this is one thing and the accusations about racism is another thing.

If Aup is tired to defend himself or he tries to play the martyr I will have to defend him, I won't let anybody here to play the martyr and the victim especially about this issue.

Mycroft

29th October 2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

It is a pretty open ended value judgement there. Were the Zionists and their supporters causing misery to the Arabs or vice-versa.

So you're saying the US threatened to withhold Marshal Plan funds if England provided arms to the Arabs? I’d be interested is seeing documentation for that.

Mycroft

29th October 2003, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I think that AUP is tired in repeating the same thing.

I believe that he is basing his criticism to Israel to anecdotes, prejudices and assumptions but this at the end reflects badly only on him.

I have told him many times that none can take his criticism seriously but this is one thing and the accusations about racism is another thing.

If Aup is tired to defend himself or he tries to play the martyr I will have to defend him, I won't let anybody here to play the martyr and the victim especially about this issue.

What is racism if not forming opinions based on prejudices and assumptions?

a_unique_person

29th October 2003, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I think that AUP is tired in repeating the same thing.

I believe that he is basing his criticism to Israel to anecdotes, prejudices and assumptions but this at the end reflects badly only on him.

I have told him many times that none can take his criticism seriously but this is one thing and the accusations about racism is another thing.

If Aup is tired to defend himself or he tries to play the martyr I will have to defend him, I won't let anybody here to play the martyr and the victim especially about this issue.

The anecdotes I present are merely meant to disprove the generalisations made by others, eg, the IDF doesn't target civilians, the Palestinians are only blood thirsty animals, etc.

Scott

29th October 2003, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Are we going to have the whole debate of the whole history of the Middle East in one thread? I'm not, good luck No But I have to admit I would love to see you spin on this one. After all, you claim a right of return for land that belonged to people before they abandoned it, ran from it, allegedly were forcefully removed from it...

Nevermind, let's make it easy on you. What date range do you believe best supports your position for the right of return only belonging to Arabs?

Who does right of return belong to?

Do you honestly think that right ot return would include Jews?

CapelDodger

29th October 2003, 11:27 AM

Hi Cleopatra:
Next time post a warning when the trolling time starts, please.
I am a bad person. Love the Mark Twain quote, though.

Cleopatra

29th October 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Hi Cleopatra:

I am a bad person. Love the Mark Twain quote, though.

I will pray for your soul Capel Dodger at the Mountain Temple next time I will visit Jerusalem. I love the Mark Twain quote too along with the other proverb, that I'd rather die than change to something else.

Both of them are so me...

E.J.Armstrong

31st October 2003, 06:39 AM

originally posted by Scott
Key concepts in italics.

It still doesn't answer the question though.
Didn't a recent Tom Cruise movie deal with matters of judging before the act took place? If the government of Israel can decide what will happen in the future, does that make them psychic or prejudiced?

I am afraid that the information does in fact address the question by demonstrating that the clear international will was that they should have ben allowed to return to therir homes.

E.J.Armstrong

31st October 2003, 06:48 AM

[I]originally posted by a_unique_person]I have told him many times that none can take his criticism seriously ...
Patronising and factually incorrect. Perhaps she might back up this latest claim? Somehow I doubt it.

E.J.Armstrong

31st October 2003, 07:02 AM

originally posted by Cleopatra
I will remind you that judging things from your house in Britain and criticizing people that live miles away is a rather common tactic.

You just cannot make this stuff up. The logic is truly bizarre.

Are the people of Britain not permitted to talk about atrocities around the world, including those perpetrated by Sharon on innocent Palestinian people. On what planet is she living?

Scott

31st October 2003, 08:57 AM

Didn't a recent Tom Cruise movie deal with matters of judging before the act took place? If the government of Israel can decide what will happen in the future, does that make them psychic or prejudiced?What? I'm going to need a refresher on this one...

I am afraid that the information does in fact address the question by demonstrating that the clear international will was that they should have ben allowed to return to therir homes. It also demonstrates the international will (on the condition of their willingness to live at peace with their neighbours) regarding their right of return. This section is repeatedly denied by Arafat because he doesn't want to live in peace with Israel. It is repeatedly ignored by anti-Israel crowd because Israel is the root of all evil in the Middle East. If the US would just get out of Israel, Arafat and his minions could take care of Israel and then all would be OK in the Middle East.

Anyway, on 10/24/03, a-u-p asks: "The country that was taken was the one that the people of Palestine lived in. They got to keep their houses under the other rulers, at least, and their dignity. Under Israel they lost both."

To which MyCroft asks the following excellent question: "I'm not familiar with that country. Can you tell me about it? When was it founded? What type of government did it have? What type of currency did it use?"

Which a-u-p still hasn't answered (except to say "It wasn't Zionist!") because the answer slays his arguments.

There was no country.

It was never founded--except for Israel way back when--and when the "Palestinians" had opportunity to form one they didn't.

It didn't have a government.

It didn't have an "official" currency.

The area was simply known as Palestine. There has never been a country called Palestine. There isn't even a legit "ethnicity" (that may not be the word I'm looking for, but you get the idea) Palestinian. They're from other places like Egypt, Syria, Jordan... In reality , they're Egyptian-Palestinian, Sryian-Palestinian, and--heaven forbid--Jewish-Palestinian.

All you have to do to be Palestinian is live in the area known as Palestine

As to the second part of a-u-p's comment "They got to keep their houses under the other rulers, at least, and their dignity. Under Israel they lost both."

They didn't lose both, they abandoned them. Israel was willing to live in peace with the Arabs. The Arabs got to keep there homes until they started abandoning them at the request of other Arab countries as I noted previously.

Anyway...

From your reference, the first noted violent conflict.

"1920's and 30's - A series of violent clashes occurs between some Palestinian communities and the more recently arrived Jewish settlers. Jewish underground guerrilla groups such as Irgun and Stern are formed to fight for an independent Jewish state."

March 1920 - Muslims considered the Balfour Decl. as a mandate for Jewish to rule Muslims. Also, Arabs viewed the climbing Jewish population as a threat on the Trans-Jordan land, and the "Bloody Passover" riot occurs when Arabs attack the Jewish, in part because:

- while it's OK for Jews and Christians to live under Muslim rule, the reverse is not OK.
- rumours of Israelie on Arab violence. As far as I can find, there's no factual evidence to support those rumours. (willing to read someone's documented evidence)

a_unique_person

31st October 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Scott
What? I'm going to need a refresher on this one...

It also demonstrates the international will (on the condition of their willingness to live at peace with their neighbours) regarding their right of return. This section is repeatedly denied by Arafat because he doesn't want to live in peace with Israel. It is repeatedly ignored by anti-Israel crowd because Israel is the root of all evil in the Middle East. If the US would just get out of Israel, Arafat and his minions could take care of Israel and then all would be OK in the Middle East.

Bald assertion based on nothing. It also just as likely that Arafat doesn't want to accept a deal, that rejects right of return, because it would be too unpopular with his people. To put Arafat in the Idi Amin class of rulers is ridiculous. More the Sharon class.

Anyway, on 10/24/03, a-u-p asks: "The country that was taken was the one that the people of Palestine lived in. They got to keep their houses under the other rulers, at least, and their dignity. Under Israel they lost both."

To which MyCroft asks the following excellent question: "I'm not familiar with that country. Can you tell me about it? When was it founded? What type of government did it have? What type of currency did it use?"

The other Arab countries had already been created. This was the logical result of Britain divesting itself of the lands it had aquired from the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

All except for the area of the world commonly known as Palestine. Here, the problem was that the Zionists were insisting on creating a Zionist state, even though they were in the minority.

The Arabs were insisting to Britain to end the dithering and just declare the State of Palestine by 1948. The Zionists then gazumped them by unilaterally declaring the State of Israel in 1947.

As to the people who lived there, the majority, who wanted the State of Palestine declared, were completely ignored. Yes, they lived there, in their homes, and they wanted a State of their own.

Which a-u-p still hasn't answered (except to say "It wasn't Zionist!") because the answer slays his arguments.

There was no country.

It was never founded--except for Israel way back when--and when the "Palestinians" had opportunity to form one they didn't.

You mean they didn't just unilaterally declare one by force of arms. They were negotiating with the British to have it handed over to them.

It didn't have a government.

It didn't have an "official" currency.

The area was simply known as Palestine. There has never been a country called Palestine. There isn't even a legit "ethnicity" (that may not be the word I'm looking for, but you get the idea) Palestinian. They're from other places like Egypt, Syria, Jordan... In reality , they're Egyptian-Palestinian, Sryian-Palestinian, and--heaven forbid--Jewish-Palestinian.

The Jews are a legit 'ethnicity'? Don't make me laugh. In two thousand years, there has been huge interbreeding between the Jews and the Europeans. The red headed, freckled Jew is quite a common sight.

All you have to do to be Palestinian is live in the area known as Palestine

Your racist, bigoted slurs are acknowledged.

As to the second part of a-u-p's comment "They got to keep their houses under the other rulers, at least, and their dignity. Under Israel they lost both."

They didn't lose both, they abandoned them. Israel was willing to live in peace with the Arabs. The Arabs got to keep there homes until they started abandoning them at the request of other Arab countries as I noted previously.

They were

a) Forced to Leave
b) Fled in fear of war. This is a common event in a war, refugees fleeing fighting. I did not know that fear for your life and your family was a reason to steal from someone. That is also known as looting.

Anyway...

From your reference, the first noted violent conflict.

"1920's and 30's - A series of violent clashes occurs between some Palestinian communities and the more recently arrived Jewish settlers. Jewish underground guerrilla groups such as Irgun and Stern are formed to fight for an independent Jewish state."

March 1920 - Muslims considered the Balfour Decl. as a mandate for Jewish to rule Muslims. Also, Arabs viewed the climbing Jewish population as a threat on the Trans-Jordan land, and the "Bloody Passover" riot occurs when Arabs attack the Jewish, in part because:

- while it's OK for Jews and Christians to live under Muslim rule, the reverse is not OK.
- rumours of Israelie on Arab violence. As far as I can find, there's no factual evidence to support those rumours. (willing to read someone's documented evidence)

The Arabs were fighting the theft of their country. As events have shown, they were right to resist, as theft was exactly what was planned.

Scott

31st October 2003, 07:26 PM

It also just as likely that Arafat doesn't want to accept a deal, that rejects right of return, because it would be too unpopular with his people.Arafat always finds a reason to not make peace. In 1997 he said the plan didn't get Israel out fast enough.

2 years.

He couldn't give Israel 2 years for the sake of peace...

In 2000, he rejects peace after Isreal offers him 96% of what he claims he wants.

Arafat doesn't want peace. The map of "Palestine" he endorses, wears and waves has exactly the same borders as Israel.

To put Arafat in the Idi Amin class of rulers is ridiculous. More the Sharon class.Who put Arafat in Amin's class?

Why do you always put words in other people's mouths?

Either way, you can't be serious. Arafat's reign of terror has spanned nearly 50 years. He's a brutal blood thirsty terrorist.

In Cairo, before he was seventeen Arafat was smuggling arms to Palestine to be used against the British and the Jews. At nineteen, during the war between the Jews and the Arab states, Arafat left his studies at the University of Faud I (later Cairo University) to fight against the Jews in the Gaza area.

In 1958 he and his friends founded Al-Fatah, an underground network of secret cells, which in 1959 began to publish a magazine advocating armed struggle against Israel. At the end of 1964 Arafat left Kuwait to become a full-time revolutionary, organising Fatah raids into Israel from Jordan.

Arafat developed the PLO into a state within the state of Jordan with its own military forces. King Hussein of Jordan, disturbed by its guerrilla attacks on Israel and other violent methods, eventually expelled the PLO from his country.

(Expelled the PLO from the biggest territory of Palestine? Interesting...)

The Arabs were insisting to Britain to end the dithering and just declare the State of Palestine by 1948. The Zionists then gazumped them by unilaterally declaring the State of Israel in 1947.Yes, but the State of Israel in 1948, did not include the West Bank and Gaza. Again, Jordan claimed the West Bank as theirs in 1950. If it was so easy for Israel and Jordan to claim land, why didn't the Palestinians claim some?

Repeat after me, "there is no country called Palestine

"There never has been a country called Palestine.

"There never will be a country called Palestine as long as Arafat is in power"

Israel has a history of giving land back for peace, I don't have to remind you they returned captured lands to Syria and Egypt in exchange for peace in 1974.

The Jews are a legit 'ethnicity'? Don't make me laugh. In two thousand years, there has been huge interbreeding between the Jews and the Europeans. The red headed, freckled Jew is quite a common sight. There you go again, putting words in people's mouths.

Go back and find in any statement I made that said Jew was an ethnicity. I'll send you a gift certificate to the OutBack Steakhouse for you and a guest if you do.

Your racist, bigoted slurs are acknowledged.I do not believe in any form or fashion that one race of people is superior to another.

I don't believe Arabs in general are bad people, or lower on the food chain. I've never said that they are. I believe Afarfat is a terrorist, and that some Arabs, just like some whites, browns, yellows, blacks, want Israel destroyed.

If you read anything into my statements that is racist and/or bigoted, it is because of your own anti-semetic baggage and prejudices that you carry.

That being said...

Where did I mention race?

What slur?

It's a slur to say all you have to do claim to be a Palestinian is live in Palestine?

Arafat's not Palestinian, he's Egyptian.

But I'm understanding your ways, lie, spin, put words in people's mouths, but provide no evidence that can be scrutinized because when you do, it gets ripped to shreds.

Besides, I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are Arabic.

They were
a) Forced to Leave
b) Fled in fear of war. This is a common event in a war, refugees fleeing fighting. I did not know that fear for your life and your family was a reason to steal from someone. I'm sorry, did I confuse you with the facts when I posted previously that they were asked to leave by other Arab countries so they could launch a war on Israel from their homes and villages? I can repost it if you like, or it's on page 11 of this thread about half-way down.

The Arabs were fighting the theft of their country. As events have shown, they were right to resist, as theft was exactly what was planned. The Arabs started the wars to rid the world of the Jews. You've provided no evidence otherwise, no events show this.

Now, again, do you honestly believe Arafat wants peace with Israel?

Or is it more likely that, considering the PLO Charter, the PLO maps of "Palestine," and the years of terror he's played out among everything else he's done to ensure peace is never at hand, that Arafat doesn't really want peace?

Mycroft

31st October 2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Scott
Arafat always finds a reason to not make peace. In 1997 he said the plan didn't get Israel out fast enough.

2 years.

He couldn't give Israel 2 years for the sake of peace...

You gotta keep ringin’ that bell, they just don’t hear it.

Peace is there for the taking, it always has been. Whine all you want about curfews, demolitions, checkpoints, security fences, and whatever. The truth is the Arabs can be done with all that, have peace, have a new nation and get on with their lives the moment they decide those things are more important than killing Jews.

Originally posted by Scott
Arafat doesn't want peace. The map of "Palestine" he endorses, wears and waves has exactly the same borders as Israel.

The Palestine Liberation Organization was formed in 1964, three years before Israel took the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967. What does that mean? It’s not the West Bank and the Gaza Strip they want to “liberate”.

Why won’t they take the land and make peace? Same answer: It’s not the West Bank and the Gaza Strip they want to “liberate.”

Originally posted by Scott
Repeat after me, "there is no country called Palestine.

But there is a Palestinian-Arab state. You could actually argue that there is more than one, as “Palestine” before the days of the British Mandate could be applied to a larger region.

Originally posted by Scott
Israel has a history of giving land back for peace, I don't have to remind you they returned captured lands to Syria and Egypt in exchange for peace in 1974.

Further, there were settlements on these lands. Israeli settlements.

Just something to think about the next time someone is tempted to say the settlements are a hinderance to peace.

Originally posted by Scott
What slur?

It's a slur to say all you have to do claim to be a Palestinian is live in Palestine?

AUP is blind to double standards. He will call you racist for pointing out that there is no specific Palestinian ethnicity, yet in the same breath he will say:

Originally posted by a_unique_person [B]The Jews are a legit 'ethnicity'? Don't make me laugh. In two thousand years, there has been huge interbreeding between the Jews and the Europeans. The red headed, freckled Jew is quite a common sight.

And if you try to tell him that he is by his own standards a racist, he won’t get it.

I may be late in saying it, but welcome to the forum, Scott! It's great to see there are other people who can recognize common sense when they see it.

E.J.Armstrong

1st November 2003, 12:53 PM

originally posted by Scott
What? I'm going to need a refresher on this one... It appears the matter was prejudged by Israel because it did not allow the condition to be tested.It also demonstrates the international will (on the condition of their willingness to live at peace with their neighbours) regarding their right of return. This section is repeatedly denied by Arafat because he doesn't want to live in peace with Israel. It is repeatedly ignored by anti-Israel crowd because Israel is the root of all evil in the Middle East. If the US would just get out of Israel, Arafat and his minions could take care of Israel and then all would be OK in the Middle East. If a court says to me that you must do something upon a condition and I say I refuse to comply with your wishes because I believe the condition will not be met - that would be a clear case of prejudicial conduct on my part.

You are also falling into a common trap by characterising entire groups of people with silly and inappropriate attributes.

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you believe that Israel has ever done anything wrong in its treatment of the Palestinian people? If so what was it?Anyway, on 10/24/03, a-u-p asks: "The country that was taken was the one that the people of Palestine lived in. They got to keep their houses under the other rulers, at least, and their dignity. Under Israel they lost both." I have shown that it is quite clear where the people should have been allowed to return to. Their homes. Which a-u-p still hasn't answered (except to say "It wasn't Zionist!") because the answer slays his arguments.

There was no country.
The people had identifiable homes.
...rumours of Israelie on Arab violence. As far as I can find, there's no factual evidence to support those rumours. (willing to read someone's documented evidence) Surely you can't have forgotten Baruck Goldstein. You also seem to have forgotten the terrorist activities of some of the founders of Israel. The following quote is from http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3499.htm"We don't know how many have died like this," said a spokeswoman for the Israeli Physicians for Human Rights, "because many people don't even bother to set out for hospital, knowing the soldiers will stop them. "These people offer no threat to Israel. Those who do, like the suicide bombers, of course never go through roadblocks, which exist only to control, subjugate and humiliate ordinary people. It is like a routine terrorism." There are many recorded instances of Israeli on Arab violence. That you have failed to find any I think says a lot. In addition to all the other examples I have posted there are the terrorist acts Sharon is perpetrating on innocent Palestinians. Perhaps this link will help when it saysAn Israeli human rights group has accused the country's security forces of turning a blind eye to violence by Jewish settlers against Palestinians. from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/1236010.stm

Mycroft

2nd November 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
It appears the matter was prejudged by Israel because it did not allow the condition to be tested.

So you’re suggesting that real people set up the circumstances for a Rwanda type genocide to test to see if it would really happen?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to look for real assurances that it wouldn’t happen first? Or better yet, just make sure it never happens?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If a court says to me that you must do something upon a condition and I say I refuse to comply with your wishes because I believe the condition will not be met - that would be a clear case of prejudicial conduct on my part. [/B]

If a court orders you to release a child into the care of a known child molester, and you’re not convinced the child would not be molested…Hmmm, it seems the circumstances make all the difference in the world, don’t they?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
You are also falling into a common trap by characterising entire groups of people with silly and inappropriate attributes. [/B]

When the issue is life and death, do you think terms like “silly” and “inappropriate” apply?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Let me ask you a simple question. Do you believe that Israel has ever done anything wrong in its treatment of the Palestinian people? If so what was it? [/B]

That’s a great question. If the answer were “yes” followed by specifics, would that in any way change Israel’s need for self-defense?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I have shown that it is quite clear where the people should have been allowed to return to. Their homes. The people had identifiable homes. [/B]

Now who is characterizing an entire group of people?

If an individual home-owner lost a home, one could argue that compensation is fair, but don’t you agree that there are larger issues (such as peace) that need to be resolved first?

How do these issues compare with other people who have lost homes in other conflicts? Should a German citizen be able to demand compensation from Allied nations if his home was destroyed in an allied bombing? Should a British citizen be able to demand compensation from Axis nations if his home were lost in a bombing? At what point do you recognize that not everybody can be restored to their former wealth after a war?

Scott

2nd November 2003, 04:20 PM

Mycroft, thanks. I've been a lurker for a few years and finally decided to jump in.

E.J. Armstrong...

It appears the matter was prejudged by Israel because it did not allow the condition to be tested.What matter are you talking about being prejudged?

The key concepts are in italics in the post in question. You recall your post that stated..."The UN General Assembly passes Resolution 194, which declares that Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes (on the condition of their willingness to live at peace with their neighbours) and that Israel should facilitate this at the earliest practicable date." (italics mine)

Anyway, here's really what Resolution 194 says "11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;"

Now, here's a little quiz for you. Read 194 (http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/c758572b78d1cd0085256bcf0077e51a) at the UN website, find the word "Palestinian" in there---anywhere.

What about living in peace with ones neighbors are you opposed to?

What about living in peace with ones neighbors is Arafat opposed to?

The PLO has NO, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, ABSOLUTELY NO, history of wanting to live at peace with Israel. They've never done anything to demonstrate that they do.

On the other hand, Israel has shown it's willingness to make peace with it's neighbors who choose to make peace with Israel.

If a court says to me that you must do something upon a condition and I say I refuse to comply with your wishes because I believe the condition will not be met - that would be a clear case of prejudicial conduct on my part. When did the Palestinians sign a peace agreement with Israel? (and keep their word on it?)

You are also falling into a common trap by characterising entire groups of people with silly and inappropriate attributes. So the PLO wants to live at peace with Israel?

Here's the PLO National Covenant (charter) (http://www.palestine-un.org/plo/pna_three.html) from the PLO's UN website.

What do Articles 8, 9, 15, and 21 call for?

Here's the geographic description of Palestine from the PLO's UN website:

"Palestine is bordered on the west by the Mediterranean, with a coastline that is 230 kilometers (km) long; on the east by Syria, with whom it shares a border of 70 km, and Jordan, with whom it shares a border of 360 km; on the north by Lebanon (and Syria), sharing with them a border of 79 km; and on the south by the Sinai and the Gulf of Aqaba. The border from Taba, on the Gulf of Aqaba, to Rafah, on the Mediterranean, is approximately 240 km long. The Palestinian coast on the Gulf of Aqaba is 10.5 km long."

Here's a map of the above description of Palestine. (http://www.palestine-net.com/geography/gifs/palmap.gif)

Where did Israel go?

Let me ask you a simple question. Do you believe that Israel has ever done anything wrong in its treatment of the Palestinian people? If so what was it? Yes.

I think allowing the massacre at Deir Yassin spoken of earlier was wrong. (p11, of this topic about 3/4th of the way down)

How many examples do you want?

I have shown that it is quite clear where the people should have been allowed to return to. Their homes. I agree, and once they agree to live in peace, everyone that abandoned their homes at the request of other Arab nations should be allowed to return.

But then there's another hitch... Almost 5 million more people are demanding the right of return than abandoned their homes.

E. J., how many people should be given the right of return.

Surely you can't have forgotten Baruck Goldstein.Not at all, he just did his thing almost 75 years after the riots I mentioned. Or are we falling back to where you think the Tom Cruise movie that sucked concept is OK?

In regards to the rest of Pilger's writings, I wonder why so many suicide bombers are stopped--generally killed at--check points...

Do you read anything other than anti-Israel stuff so that you can develop your own informed opinion?

There are many recorded instances of Israeli on Arab violence. That you have failed to find any I think says a lot.And correcting a-u-p on his example doesn't count?

By the same token, all you've done is point out Israel on Arab violence. Yet you refuse to look for the root cause of this violence. Let's just blame Israel for it.

Who attacked Israel in 1948?

You use the words of organizations that have flashy names like they're supposed to mean something, you pull quotes from known anti-Israelie journalists, yet you won't use the words of the people involved--like Arafat, Hamas, and the other terrorists.

I'll be happy to discuss anything related to this you'd like. If you want to talk about Isralie government sanctioned actions let's do it.

If you want to talk about individual whackos like Goldstien, just remember they're isolated incidents--unlike the coordinated attacks of the suicide bombers that have killed more with one bomb than Goldstien--who was an American--did with a machine gun.

**edited to fix links

E.J.Armstrong

3rd November 2003, 02:19 PM

So you’re suggesting that real people set up the circumstances for a Rwanda type genocide to test to see if it would really happen? Clearly not. Sinmply that you don't prejudge things.Wouldn’t it make more sense to look for real assurances that it wouldn’t happen first? Or better yet, just make sure it never happens? Wouldn't it make sense to actually do what the UN wanted instead of flouting international will?If a court orders you to release a child into the care of a known child molester, and you’re not convinced the child would not be molested…Hmmm, it seems the circumstances make all the difference in the world, don’t they? So you do not believe in the rule of law. Hmm.When the issue is life and death, do you think terms like “silly” and “inappropriate” apply? Indeed I do. The epithets Scott used were extremely silly and inappropriate. That’s a great question. If the answer were “yes” followed by specifics, would that in any way change Israel’s need for self-defense? So good you won't answer it, although you are answering a post on another member's behalf. As I have explianed many times now it is not Israel's self defence that I take issue with - it is the terror being waged by Sharon in the name of self defence that I take issue with.Now who is characterizing an entire group of people? Not with you here. I am characterising entire groups of peole by summarising the UN resolution. Really? If an individual home-owner lost a home, one could argue that compensation is fair, but don’t you agree that there are larger issues (such as peace) that need to be resolved first? Don't you agree that there is the small matter of obeying the law as well and not being prejudiced?How do these issues compare with other people who have lost homes in other conflicts? Should a German citizen be able to demand compensation from Allied nations if his home was destroyed in an allied bombing? Should a British citizen be able to demand compensation from Axis nations if his home were lost in a bombing? At what point do you recognize that not everybody can be restored to their former wealth after a war? When the UN tells you to do it and you refuse to comply.

E.J.Armstrong

3rd November 2003, 03:46 PM

originally posted by Scott
What matter are you talking about being prejudged?
The matter of the return of the Palestinians to their homes. Now, here's a little quiz for you. Read 194 at the UN website, find the word "Palestinian" in there---anywhere. And what exactly will that prove - that there was no UN resolution relating to the refugees being allowed to return to their homes? The resolution mentions the word Palestine in Extends its thanks to the Acting Mediator and his staff for their continued efforts and devotion to duty in Palestine; It alsoResolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; Perhaps you can tell me when that happened? Who decided that the refugees could not be trusted? Did anyone ask them or did someone prejudge the matter?What about living in peace with ones neighbors are you opposed to? I reiterate - who decide that they wouldn't? When were they all individually asked?What about living in peace with ones neighbors is Arafat opposed to? Not sure what this means.The PLO has NO, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, ABSOLUTELY NO, history of wanting to live at peace with Israel. They've never done anything to demonstrate that they do. I recommend that you read the following Yet unlike the PLO, Israel has never offered to lower its sights, even unofficially. It is still the only country in the world which has never got around to defining its borders. Its dream of a greater Israel filled with all the world's Jewry is still held up as official policy. It constantly promotes the idea that a good Jew should be living in Israel. It dangles financial inducements to go. It keeps alive its "Law of Return," which allows a Jew who has lived all his life in Poland or Australia to become a citizen of Israel within moments of setting foot there. And while all this is going on, it expects the Palestinians not only to submit to an Israeli fait accompli which denies them a homeland, but even to abandon their dream of what that homeland could be like. from http://www.washington-report.org/html/about.html.On the other hand, Israel has shown it's willingness to make peace with it's neighbors who choose to make peace with Israel. Perhaps the above site puts that into perspective?So the PLO wants to live at peace with Israel? Was every refugee a member of the PLO?When did the Palestinians sign a peace agreement with Israel? (and keep their word on it?) Can I remind you that the UN resolved that the refugees be allowed home. Were they all members of the PLO? You seem to confuse different groups of people.So the PLO wants to live at peace with Israel? Let us define our terms here. Are you saying that all the refugees were PLO members?Where did Israel go? Has Israel defined all its own borders? If so, where is the definitive map?How many examples do you want? Only as many as creates a true picture.I agree, and once they agree to live in peace, everyone that abandoned their homes at the request of other Arab nations should be allowed to return. Who has aked them individually if they are prepared to live in peace?But then there's another hitch... Almost 5 million more people are demanding the right of return than abandoned their homes. Did they all abandon their homes at the Arab states request?E. J., how many people should be given the right of return. As many as the UN specifies.Not at all, he just did his thing almost 75 years after the riots I mentioned. Or are we falling back to where you think the Tom Cruise movie that sucked concept is OK? I'm puzzled. What has 75 years got to do with it? You didn't specify any time or time bar. There are plenty of examples of Israeli against Arab violence through the ages as there has been in the other direction. By the way, in the light of getting things factually correct, I never said that the Tom Cruise movie sucked. Do you read anything other than anti-Israel stuff so that you can develop your own informed opinion? Given that I have quoted from a range of sources including impartial observers such the BBC I find that to be another of your silly and inappropriate comments. Is the BBC an anti-Israeli operation? I am sure they would like to know. And correcting a-u-p on his example doesn't count? I have no idea what you mean. If you want to have a discussion with another poster feel free. By the same token, all you've done is point out Israel on Arab violence. Yet you refuse to look for the root cause of this violence. Let's just blame Israel for it. I have on many occasions on this site talked about Arab on Israeli violence. On what basis do you suggest that I refuse to look at the root cause of this violence. Do enlighten me as to what that cause is. Who attacked Israel in 1948? The armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq attacked Israel. Which organisation terrorised the Palestinian Arabs before 1948? Let me help you. The site http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/israel_and_the_1948_war.htm has the following to say. Before World War Two, Haganah had been, from the British viewpoint, a terrorist organisation that used violence to defend the Jewish Agency. Haganah attacked Palestinian Arabs and aspects of British rule in Palestine. By the time Israel had gained its independence, Haganah was effectively the army for Israel. There is always one previous atrocity. Coming from Northern Ireland I recognise the 'we were attacked first' argument. It normally doesn't wash in reality.You use the words of organizations that have flashy names like they're supposed to mean something, you pull quotes from known anti-Israelie journalists, yet you won't use the words of the people involved--like Arafat, Hamas, and the other terrorists.
Normally it is appropriate to attack the arguments rather than the flashiness of the name. How much flashiness do you deem to be acceptable in the name of an organisation such as the BBC? I have also repeatedly used all those names on this site and more. Let me use the words Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah again. I have also used the word Sharon and the name of some of the terrorists who helped found Israel. Was their terrorism any different? I'll be happy to discuss anything related to this you'd like. If you want to talk about Isralie government sanctioned actions let's do it. Feel free.If you want to talk about individual whackos like Goldstien, just remember they're isolated incidents--unlike the coordinated attacks of the suicide bombers that have killed more with one bomb than Goldstien--who was an American--did with a machine gun. Were the acts of terror of Irgun and the Stern Gang coordinated? Were they terrorists or freedom fighters?

All Israelis are entitled to live free from terror. So are all innocent Palestinians.

a_unique_person

4th November 2003, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

So you're saying the US threatened to withhold Marshal Plan funds if England provided arms to the Arabs? I’d be interested is seeing documentation for that.

One source

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/1947.htm

there are others.

a_unique_person

4th November 2003, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by Scott
No But I have to admit I would love to see you spin on this one. After all, you claim a right of return for land that belonged to people before they abandoned it, ran from it, allegedly were forcefully removed from it...

Nevermind, let's make it easy on you. What date range do you believe best supports your position for the right of return only belonging to Arabs?

Who does right of return belong to?

Do you honestly think that right ot return would include Jews?

Ad hom noted.

We are talking of the difference between people who are living, (but to the joy of those such as Sharon, dying out), who actually hold title deeds to land and property. Against this we have people who's ancestors may or may not have owned some land in a country that has been conquered, reqconquered and lost be many different tribes over many years. The kingdom of David and Solomon, which appears to be some kind of Golden Age, lasted perhaps 100 years, if it ever existed.

a_unique_person

4th November 2003, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by Scott
Arafat always finds a reason to not make peace. In 1997 he said the plan didn't get Israel out fast enough.

2 years.

He couldn't give Israel 2 years for the sake of peace...

Have you seen how much a settlement can expand in two years? How many new ones are being made? What is wrong with less than two years?

In 2000, he rejects peace after Isreal offers him 96% of what he claims he wants.

This 96% number is always going up. Soon it will be up to 110%. It is just a fiction. 96% of what? Who made that figure up? What does it represent? It is nothing but a libel.

Arafat doesn't want peace. The map of "Palestine" he endorses, wears and waves has exactly the same borders as Israel.

Not true. However, the Israel that Sharon and his backers are pressing for is taking a more distinct shape with every month that passes.

The Palestinians are to be reduced to the status of Jews in a ghetto.

Who put Arafat in Amin's class?

Why do you always put words in other people's mouths?

Either way, you can't be serious. Arafat's reign of terror has spanned nearly 50 years. He's a brutal blood thirsty terrorist.

In Cairo, before he was seventeen Arafat was smuggling arms to Palestine to be used against the British and the Jews. At nineteen, during the war between the Jews and the Arab states, Arafat left his studies at the University of Faud I (later Cairo University) to fight against the Jews in the Gaza area.

In 1958 he and his friends founded Al-Fatah, an underground network of secret cells, which in 1959 began to publish a magazine advocating armed struggle against Israel. At the end of 1964 Arafat left Kuwait to become a full-time revolutionary, organising Fatah raids into Israel from Jordan.

Arafat developed the PLO into a state within the state of Jordan with its own military forces. King Hussein of Jordan, disturbed by its guerrilla attacks on Israel and other violent methods, eventually expelled the PLO from his country.

Have you ever looked up Sharon's history. He has plenty of blood on his hands too.

(Expelled the PLO from the biggest territory of Palestine? Interesting...)

King Hussein wants most of all his own country, then the good of the Palestinians. He does not want the complications that looking after them brings. That is, they were an army existing within his own state, with their attacks bring reprisals. He was after peace in his own back yard and stability. Given the nature of Palestinian politics, the expulsion was really just him looking after his own interests, not any greater moral consideration.

Yes, but the State of Israel in 1948, did not include the West Bank and Gaza. Again, Jordan claimed the West Bank as theirs in 1950. If it was so easy for Israel and Jordan to claim land, why didn't the Palestinians claim some?

Because the part they wanted was the part the Zionists wanted, obviously.

Repeat after me, "there is no country called Palestine

"There never has been a country called Palestine.

"There never will be a country called Palestine as long as Arafat is in power"

The people of Palestine are what makes Palestine. Just as Americans made America. Before the revolution, there was no State called the United States of America, it was a colony of England.

Israel has a history of giving land back for peace, I don't have to remind you they returned captured lands to Syria and Egypt in exchange for peace in 1974.

You have a very selective memory in this regard. There are many parts that have not been given back, too. The majority of Israelis have been in favour of giving back the West Bank, they don't want it. It is just the Religious and Zionist nuts looking for a return to a mythical Kingdom that was at best tenous and at worst a work of fiction that insist on expanding and funding settlements in the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria as they are always referred to. Palestine is more real than these to relics from the age of myth.

Why doesn't Israel just hand it all back? They cannot hold onto it. The more they corral the Palestinians, they harder they fight back. Even the Pilots and Generals are unhappy with the clear direction that Sharon has been following.

There you go again, putting words in people's mouths.
Go back and find in any statement I made that said Jew was an ethnicity. I'll send you a gift certificate to the OutBack Steakhouse for you and a guest if you do.

You base the claim for the Palestinians to have a country on their ethnicity, but the Jews don't need one apparently.

I do not believe in any form or fashion that one race of people is superior to another.

I don't believe Arabs in general are bad people, or lower on the food chain. I've never said that they are. I believe Afarfat is a terrorist, and that some Arabs, just like some whites, browns, yellows, blacks, want Israel destroyed.

If you read anything into my statements that is racist and/or bigoted, it is because of your own anti-semetic baggage and prejudices that you carry.

That being said...

Where did I mention race?

What slur?

It's a slur to say all you have to do claim to be a Palestinian is live in Palestine?

Arafat's not Palestinian, he's Egyptian.

But I'm understanding your ways, lie, spin, put words in people's mouths, but provide no evidence that can be scrutinized because when you do, it gets ripped to shreds.

You may think that, but I see no evidence provided by you, or only selective evidence at best. Arafats history of violence is to be derided, but not a word about that shown by Sharon or Begin.

Your racism is clear in the way you refer to the Palestinians. It is a common ploy by the Zionists and their sympathisers. Deny their existence. Deny their legitimacy. Deny their aspirations. In no time, there is nothing left. Intellectual Genocide.

Besides, I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are Arabic.

That is one of Skeptic's claims for me, only he says I have some of my best friends who are Jews. Well, I don't. Or Arabs.

I'm sorry, did I confuse you with the facts when I posted previously that they were asked to leave by other Arab countries so they could launch a war on Israel from their homes and villages? I can repost it if you like, or it's on page 11 of this thread about half-way down.

The Arabs started the wars to rid the world of the Jews. You've provided no evidence otherwise, no events show this.

Now, again, do you honestly believe Arafat wants peace with Israel?

Or is it more likely that, considering the PLO Charter, the PLO maps of "Palestine," and the years of terror he's played out among everything else he's done to ensure peace is never at hand, that Arafat doesn't really want peace?

Arafat, I believe, wants peace. I do not know if he is capable of achieving it, or what to do with it if he gets it. The collective punishment and military occupation of over 30 years are still not justified.

Mycroft

4th November 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

One source

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/1947.htm

there are others.

That was a three page chronology of events that led to US recognition of Israel. Interesting reading, but I wasn't able to find where anyone said Marshal Plan funds would be withheld if England provided arms to the Arabs. The chronology ended with the recognition of Israel.

Mycroft

4th November 2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Have you seen how much a settlement can expand in two years? How many new ones are being made? What is wrong with less than two years?

Nothing is wrong with less than two years, it’s just that rejecting a peace proposal on those grounds is like canceling a call for an ambulance because it’s going to take ten minutes for it to get to you. It only makes sense if there is another alternative.

A couple of questions:

Israel has dismantled settlements before in land for peace deals, why should settlements in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip be any different?

Why couldn’t Israeli settlers in the disputed territories be allowed to remain as citizens of a new Palestinian state?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
This 96% number is always going up. Soon it will be up to 110%. It is just a fiction. 96% of what? Who made that figure up? What does it represent? It is nothing but a libel.

How so?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
King Hussein wants most of all his own country, then the good of the Palestinians. He does not want the complications that looking after them brings. That is, they were an army existing within his own state, with their attacks bring reprisals. He was after peace in his own back yard and stability. Given the nature of Palestinian politics, the expulsion was really just him looking after his own interests, not any greater moral consideration.

They were expelled from Jordan after they started a civil war.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The people of Palestine are what makes Palestine. Just as Americans made America. Before the revolution, there was no State called the United States of America, it was a colony of England.

So what are the cultural differences between a Palestinian-Arab and an Arab in Jordan or Syria?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Arafat, I believe, wants peace.

What do you base this on?

Scott

8th November 2003, 04:01 PM

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this, back surgery...

Anyway...

E.J.

As far as why the Palestinians are not mentioned in UN Resolution 194, it's because until the 1960s they were considered Syrians (Southern Syrians if you will). Palestine has been just a way to identify an open spot on a map.

In 1956, Ahmed Al-Shukeiry, (later the first head of the PLO) said "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria."

Syrian President Assad said in March 1974 that ..."Palestine is not only a part of our Arab homeland, but a basic part of southern Syria."

You recommended I read the Washington Report that claims "The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take partisan domestic political positions." It's not an international "non-partisan" site.

Yet among other clues that say "screw Israel" is the only dollar watch they have going for contries in the Middle East that get US aid is the one for Israel. They say nothing about the US being the single largest contributor to the "Palestinian" refugees.

It goes on to say "As a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242´s land-for-peace formula, supported by seven successive U.S. presidents."

Unfortunately, land for peace is not supported by Arafat and the PLO. Except of course all of Israel's land for peace.

Also, the link you provided didn't work.

Regarding Israel's borders, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel states:

"re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations" which did provide a map with defined borders.

Every Palestinian is probably not a member of the PLO, anymore than every American is a Rep. or d'rat. However, just as the US Government speaks for us, the PLO speaks for the "Palestinians."

That being said, I don't take issue with the Israelie government asking each and every "refugee" if they want to live in peace--but we both know it's not practical.

Besides any "refugee" that chooses their own destiny and on their own publicly declares they want to live at peace with Israel will soon after be murdered by Arafat and Co. for treason.

I asked you how many people have the right of return and you said "as many as the UN specifies."

According to the UN "Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict."

In 1948, the number was around 725,000. In 1950, the number was 914,000. In 2002, it was more than 4,000,000.

Do you really think that ~4,000,000 people should be allowed to return to homes they never had?

Do you really think Israel ought to be forced at the point of the international gun to give ~4,000,000 people property they never had?

By the way, in the light of getting things factually correct, I never said that the Tom Cruise movie sucked.So that we get things factually correct...

No, you didn't. I did.

The Irgun and Stern gang were terroroists.

And I agree with you:

All Israelis are entitled to live free from terror. So are all innocent Palestinians.Arafat doesn't though, and he publically/internationally speaks for the "Palestinians."

A_U_P

What is wrong with less than two years?Pull outs take time. There are several things that have to be planned for.

What's wrong with two years? (besides the fact that it gave Arafat a convinient excuse to say no peace)

Your racism is clear in the way you refer to the Palestinians. It is a common ploy by the Zionists and their sympathisers. Deny their existence. Deny their legitimacy. Deny their aspirations. In no time, there is nothing left. Intellectual Genocide. Actually, I formed my opinion based on statements by "Palestinian" supporters such as Zuheir Muhsin of the PLO. In 1977, he said "There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel."

Again, a-u-p, there has never been a nation called Palestine, a government of a people called Palestinians. It's all a huge conspiracy to get people like you to support the anihilation of those dastardly Jews.

E.J.Armstrong

14th November 2003, 12:57 PM

originally posted by ScottAs far as why the Palestinians are not mentioned in UN Resolution 194, it's because until the 1960s they were considered Syrians (Southern Syrians if you will). Palestine has been just a way to identify an open spot on a map. I'm afraid that dosn't affect my point, which is that they were entitled to return home and their homes were clearly defined. You recommended I read the Washington Report that claims "The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take partisan domestic political positions." It's not an international "non-partisan" site. As you are saying that they are a partisan site perhaps you would like to justify that claim. Could you tell me why it isn't and what does constitute an international 'non-partisan' site, since it appears the BBC also does not constitute such a body in your opinion. Yet among other clues that say "screw Israel" is the only dollar watch they have going for contries in the Middle East that get US aid is the one for Israel. They say nothing about the US being the single largest contributor to the "Palestinian" refugees So we're dealing in clues rather than facts now are we? Perhaps you would like to tell us exactly how much is going to Israel and how much is going to Palestine? Let me get you correct here. Are you really saying that because a serious body comments on the huge amounts of financial aid going to Israel (which incidently dwarfs the amount going to Palestine) are you seriously making the claimm that they are trying to or somehow saying 'screw Israel.' Perhaps you would like to justify that strange statement a little bit more?It goes on to say "As a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242´s land-for-peace formula, supported by seven successive U.S. presidents."

Unfortunately, land for peace is not supported by Arafat and the PLO. Except of course all of Israel's land for peace." Let me try and get some actual facts here. Do you have a problem with UN resolutions in principle or just this one. If so what is your problem with it? Should Israel ever follow a UN resolution?Also, the link you provided didn't work. Sorry to be a bore about facts. I have provided a number of links. Which one didn't work?Regarding Israel's borders, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel states:

"re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations" which did provide a map with defined borders.
Perhaps you could provide a link to the current defined map of Israel as agreed by the government of Israel?Every Palestinian is probably not a member of the PLO, anymore than every American is a Rep. or d'rat. However, just as the US Government speaks for us, the PLO speaks for the "Palestinians." And presumably Sharon speaks for every Israeli when he bombs children and bulldozes the houses of innocent people and assassinates suspects without trial. Don't think your logic works here.That being said, I don't take issue with the Israelie government asking each and every "refugee" if they want to live in peace--but we both know it's not practical. You can certainly speak for yourself but with respect, please do not presume to speak for me. It is only not practical if you don't want to do it. I asked you how many people have the right of return and you said "as many as the UN specifies."

According to the UN "Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict."

In 1948, the number was around 725,000. In 1950, the number was 914,000. In 2002, it was more than 4,000,000.

Do you really think that ~4,000,000 people should be allowed to return to homes they never had?
Do you really think Israel ought to be forced at the point of the international gun to give ~4,000,000 people property they never had?
Does that mean for instance that families deprived of goods by the Nazis during the war are not entitled to ask for compensation, no matter how many years have elapsed? The UN issued an instruction to Israel. Israel has to take the consequences for its actions or inaction. Just because you act unlawfully for a long period of time does not absolve you of the original obligations. If the courts fine me £100 in 1948 and I refuse to pay until 2002. Should I pay interest or not? It seems not according to you. It is up to Israel to agree a solution with the refugees in an internationally acceptable way.Arafat doesn't though, and he publically/internationally speaks for the "Palestinians." Let me get this right. Do you believe that innocent Palestinians are entitled to live free from terror or not? Do you believe that everything Sharon does is agreeable to every Israeli?

Mycroft

15th November 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I'm afraid that dosn't affect my point, which is that they were entitled to return home and their homes were clearly defined.

The key concepts are in italics in the post in question. You recall your post that stated..."The UN General Assembly passes Resolution 194, which declares that Palestinian refugees have the right to return to their homes on the condition of their willingness to live at peace with their neighbors) and that Israel should facilitate this at the earliest practicable date."

What part of on the condition of their willingness to live at peace with their neighbors don’t you get?

a_unique_person

16th November 2003, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

What part of on the condition of their willingness to live at peace with their neighbors don?t you get?

And what part of shut while we take your homes don't you get? There was a huge peaceful demo just days ago about the building of the wall. It was attended by Palestinians, Jews and International protesters. The wall still went up.

a_unique_person

16th November 2003, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Scott
Sorry for the delay in getting back to this, back surgery...

Anyway...

E.J.

As far as why the Palestinians are not mentioned in UN Resolution 194, it's because until the 1960s they were considered Syrians (Southern Syrians if you will). Palestine has been just a way to identify an open spot on a map.

In 1956, Ahmed Al-Shukeiry, (later the first head of the PLO) said "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria."

Syrian President Assad said in March 1974 that ..."Palestine is not only a part of our Arab homeland, but a basic part of southern Syria."

You recommended I read the Washington Report that claims "The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs does not take partisan domestic political positions." It's not an international "non-partisan" site.

Yet among other clues that say "screw Israel" is the only dollar watch they have going for contries in the Middle East that get US aid is the one for Israel. They say nothing about the US being the single largest contributor to the "Palestinian" refugees.

It goes on to say "As a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, it endorses U.N. Security Council Resolution 242?s land-for-peace formula, supported by seven successive U.S. presidents."

Unfortunately, land for peace is not supported by Arafat and the PLO. Except of course all of Israel's land for peace.

Also, the link you provided didn't work.

Regarding Israel's borders, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel states:

"re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations" which did provide a map with defined borders.

Every Palestinian is probably not a member of the PLO, anymore than every American is a Rep. or d'rat. However, just as the US Government speaks for us, the PLO speaks for the "Palestinians."

That being said, I don't take issue with the Israelie government asking each and every "refugee" if they want to live in peace--but we both know it's not practical.

Besides any "refugee" that chooses their own destiny and on their own publicly declares they want to live at peace with Israel will soon after be murdered by Arafat and Co. for treason.

I asked you how many people have the right of return and you said "as many as the UN specifies."

According to the UN "Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict."

In 1948, the number was around 725,000. In 1950, the number was 914,000. In 2002, it was more than 4,000,000.

Do you really think that ~4,000,000 people should be allowed to return to homes they never had?

Do you really think Israel ought to be forced at the point of the international gun to give ~4,000,000 people property they never had?

So that we get things factually correct...

No, you didn't. I did.

The Irgun and Stern gang were terroroists.

And I agree with you:

[/b]Arafat doesn't though, and he publically/internationally speaks for the "Palestinians."

A_U_P

[/b]Pull outs take time. There are several things that have to be planned for.

What's wrong with two years? (besides the fact that it gave Arafat a convinient excuse to say no peace)

[/b] Actually, I formed my opinion based on statements by "Palestinian" supporters such as Zuheir Muhsin of the PLO. In 1977, he said "There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel."

Again, a-u-p, there has never been a nation called Palestine, a government of a people called Palestinians. It's all a huge conspiracy to get people like you to support the anihilation of those dastardly Jews. [/B]

until the creation of modern Israel, there never was an internationally acknowledged nation called Israel. Even reading the bible on the most generous terms, it only existed at intermittent intervals, and usally on shared terms.