Egyptians to sue Jews for theft during exodus.

[Jon_in_london]

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP55603


Dr. Hilmi: "… Since the Jews make various demands of the Arabs and the world, and claim rights that they base on historical and religious sources, a group of Egyptians in Switzerland has opened the case of the so-called 'great exodus of the Jews from Pharaonic Egypt.' At that time, they stole from the Pharaonic Egyptians gold, jewelry, cooking utensils, silver ornaments, clothing, and more, leaving Egypt in the middle of the night with all this wealth, which today is priceless."

{snip}

Hilmi: "If we assume that the weight of what was stolen was one ton, [its worth] doubled every 20 years, even if the annual interest is only 5%. In one ton of gold is 700 kg of pure gold – and we must remember that what was stolen was jewelry, that is, alloyed with copper. Hence, after 1,000 years, it would be worth 1,125,898,240 million tons, which equals 1,125,898 billion tons for 1,000 years. In other words, 1,125 trillion tons of gold, that is, a million multiplied by a million tons of gold. This is for one stolen ton. The stolen gold is estimated at 300 tons, and it was not stolen for 1,000 years, but for 5,758 years, by the Jewish reckoning. Therefore, the debt is very large…

"The value must be calculated precisely in accordance with the information collected, and afterward a lawsuit must be filed against all the Jews of the world, and against the Jews of Israel in particular, so they will repay the Egyptians the debt that appears in the Torah."

Question: "Is a compromise solution possible?"

Hilmi: "There may be a compromise solution. The debt can be rescheduled over 1,000 years, with the addition of the cumulative interest during that period."

:jaw:

[Agammamon]

Of course he will have to provide evidence that they actually stole anything, rather than take their own belongings. And even if he does, how can a slave-keeper complain when his slaves up and leave. This guy should be grateful they weren't cutting throats on the way out.

[Agammamon]

Can the Jews sue the Egyptians for reparations for the time kept in captivity? I don't think this guy really wants to open up this can of worms.

[The Mad Linguist]

:i:

Am I the only who's noticed this is clearly a p***-take of Israel's claim over the land in Palestine?

Think about it... bizarre, irrational claim to something that clearly belongs to someone else because it was yours a couple of thousand years ago?

He's making a point, not actually trying to get money...

[Cleopatra]

May I say what I am thinkng?

[Ladewig]

And even if he does, how can a slave-keeper complain when his slaves up and leave. This guy should be grateful they weren't cutting throats on the way out.


The Israelites didn't have to cut throats because God already made sure that every last Egyptian house suffered a death.

12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
12:30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead.

[demon]

Had a right laugh when I first read that story.
I've often used this type of logic, when talking with people naive enough to buy into the claptrap about 'Jewish claims' over Palestine.

I always went with the Canaanites, basically along the lines that the Jews did to Canaan what they're doing to Palestine. And if they can site the 'bible' (more facelits than Michael Jackson), for 'authenticity' and some scintilla of logic with which to back up such a mad action, then surely the decendents of the Canaanites (I think also Palestinian?) have a right (and duty!) to kick the zionNUTS out of their country.
After all if the bible's good enough authority for the zionuts' claims it's good enough for the Canaanite counter-claim, and also since the Jews stole (God or no God, it was theft!) the land the first time round, did they really have any legitimate claims at all??

I never actually thought it would turn out to be the Egyptians who used this logic against the masters of guilt-based pleading!

Ironic and greatly enjoyable, I do hope they bankrupt the zionist thieves and the whole support structure that extends out of Europe and America ;)

[Skeptic]

This is a good time, I think, to repost the reply to the nonsense that the jewish claim to a homeland is primarily religious. Here is what I wrote in another threat about this:

But then, I also do not believe Israel's claim to the land using the Bible as title deed is valid either.

(My reply: )

One should clear up a common misconception about the jewish claim to israel. The main point of the claim is that it is an HISTORICAL fact that a). the land was a jewish kindgom for over a thousand years, and b). once exiled, the jews always continued to see it as their home and their return to it their mission. The biblical "promise" of the land by God is of secondary, if any, importance.

The bible supports this HISTORICAL claim, inasmuch as the history in it is part of the reasons we know today this kindgom existed. While SOME jews believe that the whole thing--the ancient jewish kingdom and the exile for 2000 years--was ordained by God, this is of no essential importance. It is not "God's promise of the land" that legitimizes the claim; it is the history of jewish life there. One needs to recall, specifically, that the writers of the bible talked about "God's promise" precisely BECAUSE they lived there. It is the fact that the writer of the bible lived in Jerusalem that is the essence of the claim; that he believed God gave it to him is not the point.

That the history, and not the theology, of the bible is the main issue can be seen when you consider what the jews (or zionists) do when there is a difference between the history (where the jewish kingdom was) and the theology (what God promises it will be). Do the jews or zionists follow history, or theology?

Well, in the bible, God promises the jews a whole lot more than modern israel. He promises them, literally, everything from the nile to the euphredis river: the entire modern middle east. In fact, in some passages, God promises the jews domination of the world! So? Was there ever a zionist, or jewish, demand to create a jewish state centered around Cairo or Baghdad? Of course not. Was there ever a jewish or zionist demand to, say, take over the USA because God promised all the world to the jews eventually? Of course not. (Yes, there were lone loonies who made such demands, but that doesn't count.) Why? Because there was never either a jewish state there, or a jewish memory and desire to return there, regardless of God's alleged promise.

Clearly, the zionist, or jewish, demands are based on history, not theology. One can argue against them, of course--but one cannot say they are essentially RELIGIOUS demands. "Using the bible" (that is, God's alleged promises, as opposed to the history) is simply not something the jews do to justify their claims--except when it is in support for history. If anybody in the middle east is using religion to justify evil, it is Islam--with its view that Allah told them to conquer the whole world.

[The Mad Linguist]

Is "that land should be ours because our ancestors used to live there 2,000 years ago" really that much stronger an argument than "that land should be ours becauyse our God gave it to us"?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
May I say what I am thinkng?

No.



















OK, go ahead... :p

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
Is "that land should be ours because our ancestors used to live there 2,000 years ago" really that much stronger an argument than "that land should be ours becauyse our God gave it to us"?

Certianly, especially considering the fact that in those interveining 2000 years, every jew p[rayed three times a day to return there, and the jews--alone of all nations--were countryless.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
May I say what I am thinkng?

I am looking forward to your thoughts

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Certianly, especially considering the fact that in those interveining 2000 years, every jew p[rayed three times a day to return there, and the jews--alone of all nations--were countryless.

Praying for X does not give one property rights over X, no matter how long or how often one does it for.

The fact that one's ethnic group does not currently have a homeland does not give one property rights over land that some people one is descended from used to occupy.

If one could legitimately make a claim for the land where one's ancestors lived 2,000 years ago, we would have chaos.

Oh and by the way... Romanies? Native Americans? Kurds? Just the first three nations (in the "people" sense) without nations (in the "state" sense) that came into my head... I'm sure there are more...

Edited to add: In any case, I dislike the use of the word "nation" in this context, to blur the very clear distinction between "ethnic group" and "territory" or "state".

[Mr Manifesto]

I was exiled from my house in Canada when I was nine years old. I've prayed every day that one day I might return there. Can I return now, or do I have to wait 2000 years?

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I was exiled from my house in Canada when I was nine years old. I've prayed every day that one day I might return there. Can I return now, or do I have to wait 2000 years?
That depends. Do you, in the eyes of the law, own the house? If so, go back whenever you please. If you don't own the house, have you considered buying it? If they won't sell, then no. And no amount of praying will change that fact.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist

That depends. Do you, in the eyes of the law, own the house? If so, go back whenever you please. If you don't own the house, have you considered buying it? If they won't sell, then no. And no amount of praying will change that fact.

But... but... skeptic said... I prayed three times a day, every day, do you understand that?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


I am looking forward to your thoughts

When I read the article I thought to post the joke we say in Middle East about the IQ of the Egyptians but then I thought to try to control myself.

I belong to the people that they want to see the Arabs improving their status in the International Community. I know by first hand that the stereotype of the Arab terrorist doesn't correspond to the truth.

They do not help themselves with such things or with publishing books that advocate that Jews drink blood...

It saddens me, that's all.

[Glory]

They not only would have to prove damages they have to prove that the Exodus happened at all. Not likely

Glory

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Certianly, especially considering the fact that in those interveining 2000 years, every jew p[rayed three times a day to return there, and the jews--alone of all nations--were countryless.

That is pretty stupid. Think of the gypsies, for example. Also, all the indigineous tribes that have been deprived of the homelands they were actually living in when they were kicked out.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Certianly, especially considering the fact that in those interveining 2000 years, every jew p[rayed three times a day to return there, and the jews--alone of all nations--were countryless.

Every Jew. You need to get a grip on reality. Many Jews are secular and pray no more than most of us on JREF pray.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


When I read the article I thought to post the joke we say in Middle East about the IQ of the Egyptians but then I thought to try to control myself.

I belong to the people that they want to see the Arabs improving their status in the International Community. I know by first hand that the stereotype of the Arab terrorist doesn't correspond to the truth.

They do not help themselves with such things or with publishing books that advocate that Jews drink blood...

It saddens me, that's all.

It is clearly just a response to such crazy situations as Jews claiming ownership of the tomb of Abraham

http://www.propheticround-up.com/wr/kvrjos030403.htm

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It is clearly just a response to such crazy situations as Jews claiming ownership of the tomb of Abraham



Jews? Every Jew? There are many, millions to be exact of Jews all around the world who are secular and consider those things crap.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Jews? Every Jew? There are many, millions to be exact of Jews all around the world who are secular and consider those things crap.

Call of the crocs, I meant those ones that are claiming ownership. As I have noted many times before, there are plenty of secular Jews who want no part of this nonsense, and I would guess plenty of religous too.

[Cleopatra]

...the majority to be exact doesn't even want to hear about those things. People are tired and have had enough.

[corplinx]

Historical claims are pointless at this point. The "world" agreed to establish Israel after ww2. Its said and done. Any "historical" claims to more land than was given are pointless.

Historically, some native americans should get manhattan back. However, tough cheese.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
...the majority to be exact doesn't even want to hear about those things. People are tired and have had enough.

I think I have made this point before.

How much trouble does this West Bank issue cause around the world?
How many people actually want to settle in it? 500,000? (Taking out those who are subsidised and honorary jews).

You may well be sick of these things, I am sick of these things. What is so hard about just kicking them out? There is plenty of desert in Israel they can set up rusted, little trailers on. Every time one little settlement has it's 'outposts'* knocked down, they are back the next week.

The actual parliamentary representation of these people is about 10%. The rest are just urgers like Sharon, who are quite happy to see his own people killed for some greater good.

What is it about the Israelis that they cannot take on some kooks? We had our own racist/extremist group set up in Australia recently. Their founder has just been jailed for three years. Germans don't give the Neo-Nazis any slack.

In Australia, some followers of the Mosciah, Rabbi Schneerson, have just had a big court battle. Fabled riches of gold and diamonds in Australia were going to fund a Fundamentalist utopia on earth for conservatives. (Millions have been sent to fund election campaigns and fund settlements, too.)

Well, the gold and diamonds have gone bust, and Joseph Gutnick wants his money back he leant to their schools. A court order has closed the schools and allowed him to sell them to try to pay his way out of his financial quagmire. Do you know what the reaction from these people to the closures was? "The Jewish people are used to this, we have been moved on and suffered for many centuries, this is nothing new." (paraphrase).

Hang on, this was all their own work. No racists or nazis did this. Why won't the Israeli's stop supporting these nongs? You are tired of being reminded of them? Get rid of them. Then half the IDF can pack up and go home. It's a democracy, if there is a minority causing too much trouble for the majority, they will just have to cop with not getting what they want. No one is going to deprive them of their rights. They just won't be able to deprive the Palestinians of their remaining land. They will trot out the same line about their centuries of suffering. This line is not a rational response to real events, but a mantra that they even trot out against their own people.

[demon]

Unique:
"As I have noted many times before, there are plenty of secular Jews who want no part of this nonsense, and I would guess plenty of religous too."

The big issue the Jewish community faces - and always did - is that most of the organised communities have done fundraisers and such for Israel for decades. There is a very strong complicity between Israel and Jews who I would call reasonable people in ALL other areas of their lives except Israel .

In this sense it is not just a Zionist problem. When someone as mild, gentle and urbane as Jonathon Sacks continues to go to bat for Israel you know the problem goes into the heart of the commmunity. Jonathon Sacks should be standing full against the policies of Israel and giving context as to why occupying, purging and murdering people may put the state of Israel in the situation where it is oppressor and the Palestinians are defenders of their families and land. His total moral failure has really changed my view of a man who for years I deeply admired.

So this is a Jewish problem. We ALL have all the facts, so there is no excuse for supporting apartheid. I would use the example of Goldhagen's mindless book "Hitler's willing executioners" as an example of deep Jewish hypocrisy. This is a book embraced by most of the Jewish community. It sheets blame for the holocaust back to the ordinary German, so that an entire people is blamed. This is acceptable, apparently, and a view that is encouraged for the most part in the Jewish communities.

However there are several issues bearing on Jewish hypocrisy here -

1. The first is that it is fine to collectively accuse a people - as long as it is not Jews in the line of fire. That's the principle established from moderate through to madcap zionist. It applies to Germans and to Arabs too, for whom Jews, along with moderate Westerners in general, have an everlasting contempt.

2. The second is, and Finkelstein points out the historical irrelevance of this book - Germans in general had little idea and little control over what was happening to Jews. That is, while millions of Germans were complicit, tens of millions weren't.

3. Here we come to what we can call the Goldhagen paradox. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you adopt the view that all Germans are complicit in genocide, you MUST adopt the view that all Jews are complicit in apartheid. This time, however, the reasons Goldhagen gives for German complicity actually apply. Jews have known about the purges in Israel - the reality - since 1948 and they've known it first hand. They actually DID have access to knowledge that was largely buried away from the Western mind. Moderate Jews have been sending money and aid to the Jewish state and kibbutzes for 50 years. So they are physically complicit in a way Germans never were in the genocide. But we can';t ever say this - because it is simply forbidden to lump all Jews together (a view I actually agree with).

It's fine to collectively accuse Germans and Arabs and collectively PUNISH Palestinians, but asking the Jewish community to take collective responsibility for something that for a large part even moderate synogogues have supported - the establishment of an ethnically cleansed state - is seen as anti-semitic.

The moment Zionists set right - to the degree that they can - the problems they have caused Palestinians, is the moment 99 out of 100 people who have opposed this apartheid darling of the western world will blissfully switch off from them.
I for one couldn't care to focus on Israel another moment, but will because WE in the west support fascism and apartheid through them to a degree unknown of compared to our other crummy little fascist clients.

[a_unique_person]

Even in Alabama, the rule of law appears to be holding. In Israel, when the Supreme Court rules that a settlement is illegal and must be torn down, such rulings are ignored.




The fact that the Palestinians hold in their hands the verdict of the Israeli Supreme Court, confirming Palestinian ownership of the land, counts for little on the Wild West Bank - the settlers of nearby Oranit don't care, and the army is intructed to "protect Israeli citizens," however illegal and irresponsible they choose to behave.



http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/peace/jul99/msg00006.html

[Checkmite]

Indeed, the Hebrews surely had committed the grandest of all thefts, considering that they must've taken all physical and written evidence of their en masse enslavement and subsequent exodus with them when they left!

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by corplinx
[B]Historical claims are pointless at this point. The "world" agreed to establish Israel after ww2. Its said and done. [B]

That's not quite correct. As I recall, when the British Mandate in Palestine ended, the United Nations suggested the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. While partition, as a general rule, doesn't solve the problems people have living with their neighbours, it was the course of action that the "world" recommended. However, it's not what happened. Instead we got apartheid and ethnic cleansing and a single, ethnically-streamed, semi-theocratic state - because the Zionists and their backers in the West weren't prepared to settle for anything less.

Now the US has endorsed a two-state solution, what do we see? Sharon doing his best to hamstring the Palestinian state before it is even born, with settlements and fences and areas under Israeli control which make a mockery of any concept of territorial integrity in the embryonic nation.

And btw, I think the historical claims of Palestinians in the refugee camps for the land they were farming sixty years ago, from which they were expelled with no compensation, remain relevant.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


That's not quite correct. As I recall, when the British Mandate in Palestine ended, the United Nations suggested the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. While partition, as a general rule, doesn't solve the problems people have living with their neighbours, it was the course of action that the "world" recommended. However, it's not what happened.

It didn't happen because Palestinians and the Arab World rejected it this is why the partition didn't happen.I think that we must not forget that.


Now the US has endorsed a two-state solution, what do we see? Sharon doing his best to hamstring the Palestinian state before it is even born, with settlements and fences and areas under Israeli control which make a mockery of any concept of territorial integrity in the embryonic nation


It's absurd to blame one side only in this matter. We know who Sharon is but he was first that took measures of "building trust" by releasing Palestinian prisoners although it wasn't part of the Road map Plan.

The fence won't stay for many reasons. First, the boarders of Israel are the pro-1967 although Israel occupies West bamk legitimately. Second, the fence keeps apart even Israeli villages, something terribly absurd, also it contributes very little to Israel's security.

As for Goldhagen's book, it was his PhD thesis in Harvard. People who know what a PhD thesis is, do not make such stupid remarks but of course you must have heard of what a PhD means...

nd btw, I think the historical claims of Palestinians in the refugee camps for the land they were farming sixty years ago, from which they were expelled with no compensation, remain relevant.

It does, under certain circumstances of course.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
It didn't happen because Palestinians and the Arab World rejected it this is why the partition didn't happen.I think that we must not forget that.

Well, that's not what I'd heard. The version I heard had a lot more to do with Israeli guerrillas unilaterally declaring their state.

But even if the two-state solution was rejected as a result of Arab non-cooperation, there is no way that Arabs can be blamed for the inherently apartheid basis of much of the way Israel is set up, for instance the Right of Return.

(Edited to moderate an unjustly inflammatory comment)

[The Mad Linguist]

Israel occupies West bamk legitimately

That's a matter of opinion.

[Tmy]

Speaking of rightful ownership, what about all those Egyptian artifacts hanging around London Musems?

[Victor Danilchenko]

The Mad Linguist

Well, that's not what I'd heard. The version I heard had a lot more to do with Israeli guerrillas unilaterally declaring their state.The Israel after the war of 1948 was pretty much within the UN borders. the lands partitioned to palestinian state were occupied by Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. The terrotories were occupied by Israel during the war of 1967 -- a defensive war. I am not surprised that you didn't know these basic historic facts, as you clearly know little about what actually happened in the region.

Yes, Israel's existence was immediately denied by arab stated upon its declaration, and israel was immediately attacked. the war of 1948 was a war for survival, nothing less.

But even if the two-state solution was rejected as a result of Arab non-cooperation,Which is was...

there is no way that Arabs can be blamed for the inherently apartheid basis of much of the way Israel is set up, for instance the Right of Return.Israel was set up as nationalist state -- a state to protect the jews from future atrocities. True, this is a discriminatory foundation -- but it was forced upon jews by the world who refused to treat them as regular people. had european anti-semitism not manifested itself to terribly, there would have been no need for a jewish state.

Oh, and let's not forget -- if you don't believe in historic claims of homeland, then arabs have no claim to israel proper! Sure, their claim is decades old rather than centuiries old, but still, all this time has passed. If jews have no historic claim on israel, then neither do arabs, and the fact of possession is what constitutes the grounds for such a claim.

A little historical perspective, please.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


Well, that's not what I'd heard. The version I heard had a lot more to do with Israeli guerrillas unilaterally declaring their state.

What haven't you heard? That the Palestinians rejected the UN resolution of 1947? Ok. Now that you have this important info don't you think that this changes a bit the image of the Palestinian victims?

If they had accepted the UN resolution, they wouldn't have to leave.

But even if the two-state solution was rejected as a result of Arab non-cooperation, there is no way that Arabs can be blamed for the inherently apartheid basis of much of the way Israel is set up, for instance the Right of Return.

As far as I know, all the nations were established the way Israel was established,some people left some people took their place,if you want to call this method apartheid, I don't have any problem as long as you use it for every modern state. Now in the case of Palestinians the terms that they have put to return are unique in human's History...Israel recognizes them the right to return but it doesn't recognize it the way they want it, this is not the first time that nations will have to negotiate.

Edited to moderate an unjustly inflammatory comment)

No I am not getting upset regarding this issue, only C.Dodger who claims that he is afraid of me has the talent to make me really furious when we are discussing this matter, we have had some very interesting threads during the previous months regarding this issue, Unique had some very good moments too ( :p ) a couple of members that come form Syria took part in those discussions as well, I can point them for you if you wish.

As for the West Bank occupation it's legitimate, what is not legitimate is the building of settlements as long as the issue is pending.And the issue is pending.

[Mr Manifesto]

VD:

You don't see the difference between sixty years (when some of the original occupants are still alive) and 2000 (when the entire dynasties of the orginal occupants are probably long gone)?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Mr Manifesto

You don't see the difference between sixty years (when some of the original occupants are still alive) and 2000 (when the entire dynasties of the orginal occupants are probably long gone)?Not the sort of difference which would allow you to recognize arabs' claim but not jews' claim, no. The land of Israel is now an integral part of the state of Israel, it's not just an occupied territory in political limbo. Almost 60 years have elapsed since it was made a part of the state of israel, and I don't see 'but it's originally arabic land!' as being any different from a claim 'but it's originally jewish land!'

Which is to say, I think that both peoples have a comparably legitimate claim to that land, and privileging the arabs' claim is at the very least disingenuous.

Yes, there are still arabs alive on the occupied territories who lived on that land. There are also jews alive who were born in Israel, and who have no other home. I am sickened by the rhetoric that exalts the plight of the former while denigrating the lives of the latter. More than two full generations have changed since then, and arabs' claim to land of Israel is qualitatively as much of an 'ancient history' as jews' historic claim to it.

[demon]

"As for Goldhagen's book, it was his PhD thesis in Harvard. People who know what a PhD thesis is, do not make such stupid remarks but of course you must have heard of what a PhD means..."

I was refering to Goldhagan`s book, not his PhD thesis.
His book ( for those who value accuracy more than pettiness), is a substantially rewritten and extended version of his PhD thesis.
Reviewers refer to it as a book, libraries refer to it as a book, and Goldhagan himself is happy to refer to it a book.

If it looks like a book and acts like a book then it is probably a book.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
[b]
Yes, there are still arabs alive on the occupied territories who lived on that land. There are also jews alive who were born in Israel, and who have no other home. I am sickened by the rhetoric that exalts the plight of the former while denigrating the lives of the latter. More than two full generations have changed since then, and arabs' claim to land of Israel is qualitatively as much of an 'ancient history' as jews' historic claim to it.

I fail to see how you reconcile the first sentence of that paragraph with the last.

I don't denigrate the lives of Jes born in Israel. I denigrate the attitude that somehow the opportunity for them to live those lives necessitated establishing an apartheid state through a process of ethnic cleansing.

BTW - not just the occupied territories, also very large refugee camps in neighbouring countries.

The Israel after the war of 1948 was pretty much within the UN borders. the lands partitioned to palestinian state were occupied by Jordan, Syria, and Egypt.

I am aware of this. It does not contradict what I said. Rather than allowing the international community to determine the fate of both the Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, the British cleared out, and the current setup (more or less) was established by force on the part of Israelis on the one hand and of neighbouring states on the other. The Palestinians ending up as dispossessed political pawns on either of those two hands.

The terrotories were occupied by Israel during the war of 1967 -- a defensive war.

I am sceptical that any war can be fully "defensive" if you end up holding more territory than you started with.

I am well aware that Israel was not the aggressor in 1967, but that doesn't justify their subsequent occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Israel was set up as nationalist state -- a state to protect the jews from future atrocities. True, this is a discriminatory foundation -- but it was forced upon jews by the world who refused to treat them as regular people.

Israel was set up as an ethnically exclusive state. Two wrongs don't make a right. Or to put it another way, I don't care how much you've suffered, ethnic cleansing and an ethnically discriminatory immigration policy are just WRONG.

Zionism precedes Nazism by a considerable number of years. Prior to Nazism, anti-semitism certainly existed, but not at levels notably greater than the level of prejudice displayed against the Gypsies, or the American blacks, for example. So how exactly did the world force the Jews (and yet somehow not Gypsies or African-Americans) to engage in apartheid and ethnic cleansing?

Cleopatra:

What haven't you heard? That the Palestinians rejected the UN resolution of 1947? Ok. Now that you have this important info don't you think that this changes a bit the image of the Palestinian victims? If they had accepted the UN resolution, they wouldn't have to leave

From the BBC:

The territory was plagued with chronic unrest pitting native Arabs against Jewish immigrants (who now made up about a third the population, owning about 6% of the land). {...}

The UN set up a special committee which recommended splitting the territory into separate Jewish and Palestinian states. Palestinian representatives, known as the Arab Higher Committee, rejected the proposal; their counterparts in the Jewish Agency accepted it.

The partition plan gave 56.47% of Palestine to the Jewish state and 43.53% to the Arab state, with an international enclave around Jerusalem.

From 94% to 44%, when you represent 66% of the population... I'm not flaming well surprised the Palestinians rejected it!

Clearly, acceptance of the UN Resolution would have meant substantial numbers of Palestinians having to leave their homes.

As far as I know, all the nations were established the way Israel was established,some people left some people took their place,if you want to call this method apartheid, I don't have any problem as long as you use it for every modern state.

Most states have indeed been established the way Israel was (a population moves in from the outside, expels, enslaves or slaughters the current population) but in most cases these states were established quite some time ago. It is well-known (in fact, almost self-evident) that people in times past did not conduct themselves according to the moral standards that inform our lives today.

However, post second world war, it became increasingly obvious to the West that colonialism is inherently wrong. (Witness the slow disintegrations of the French and British Empires as the conquered nations were allowed to go their own way.) Except to the Jews in Palestine, that is, who were busy setting up a colonial state.

Now in the case of Palestinians the terms that they have put to return are unique in human's History...Israel recognizes them the right to return but it doesn't recognize it the way they want it, this is not the first time that nations will have to negotiate.

You'll have to explain further, I'm afraid. "The terms they have put to return"? Are you referring to the Palestinian leadership's refusal to negotiate on the right of return, on the basis that it belongs to each Palestinian individually and cannot be negotiated away from them by government? And in exactly what sense does Israel recognise their right to return? Last I heard the official Israeli line was that they should become citizens of the countries that host the refugee camps...

The way I see it:

Israel recognises the right of "return" of all Jews (and even, I hear, of some people who aren't themselves Jews but are related to Jews). It doesn't recognise the right of all the Palestinians who lived on the land where Israel is now to return to that land. They don't do so because if they did, it would be the end of the Jewish state - it would be a state part Jewish, part Muslim.

This behaviour meets the definition of "apartheid" and "ethnic purity" in my book.

To quote the BBC again:

Jewish forces, backed by the Irgun and Lehi militant groups made more progress, seizing areas alloted to the Jewish state but also conquering substantial territories allocated for the Palestinian one. Irgun and Lehi massacred scores of inhabitants of the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem on 9 April [1948]. Word of the massacre spread terror among Palestinians and hundreds of thousands fled to Lebanon, Egypt and the area now known as the West Bank. The Jewish armies were victorious in the Negev, Galilee, West Jerusalem and much of the coastal plain.

Sounds like ethnic cleansing (and property theft too) to me.

There is only one just solution to the problems of Israel and Palestine: a single, secular state, with no right of return for members of either group. However, that's not something either side will accept. So we will see nothing but continuing perpetuation of the conflict.

Edited to add a link to the BBC site I was quoting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/israel_and_palestinians/timeline/

[The Mad Linguist]

Forgot to respond to this:

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko


The Israel after the war of 1948 was pretty much within the UN borders. the lands partitioned to palestinian state were occupied by Jordan, Syria, and Egypt.
The BBC again:
Egypt kept the Gaza Strip while Jordan annexed the area around East Jerusalem and the land now known as the West Bank. These territories made up about 25% of the total area of British Mandate Palestine.

So Israel got 75% (and in 1967 control of the other 25%) of the land, not the 56% they were allotted by the UN...

[Victor Danilchenko]

The Mad Linguist

I fail to see how you reconcile the first sentence of that paragraph with the last.very easily. the fact is that while there are alive palestinians who were born on the territory now held by israel, there are also alive israelis who hold the same distinction. The latter more than balances out the former.

My point is simply that both peoples have a claim to that land. Since an integrated state is not practical in the current situation, a two-state solution is the only viable alternative. Saying that jews have no right to hold the land of israel is not a viable alternative.

I don't denigrate the lives of Jes born in Israel. I denigrate the attitude that somehow the opportunity for them to live those lives necessitated establishing an apartheid state through a process of ethnic cleansing.Ah yes, ethnic cleansing. More BS.

During the Independence War, israeli authorities repeatedly promised full protection to arab residents, and extolled them to stay. The arabs fled en masse mostly because of the arabic propaganda -- they were promised by the contemporary arabic leaders a swift victory of arabic armies.

So tell me, what ethnic cleansing were you talking about?

I am aware of this. It does not contradict what I said. Rather than allowing the international community to determine the fate of both the Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, the British cleared out, and the current setup (more or less) was established by force on the part of Israelis on the one hand and of neighbouring states on the other.Yes -- except that palestinian arabs never even tried to form their own state, and the arabic neiughbors attempted to destroy the state of Israel at its conception. the application of force and of political practicality was sadly unbalanced, but you cannot blame Israel for arabs' blunders.

The Palestinians ending up as dispossessed political pawns on either of those two hands.No, they ended up dispossessed pawns of their arabic neighbors. israel didn't occupy the palestinian lands back then, it was Syria and Egypt and Jordan! if anyone is to blame fo rthe fact that the palestinian state didn't emerge, it's only arabs -- both palestianian arabs (for not taking initiative in forging their future), and the arabs of neighboring countries (for simply annexing the palestinian lands).

Now mind you, I don't think that those past wars have much bearing on the justifiability of palestinian demands now; but if you are going to dig into history, let's do so honestly!

I am sceptical that any war can be fully "defensive" if you end up holding more territory than you started with.happened more than once, when the defender got the better of the aggressor. The victor draws the borders, even if the victor was originally the victim.

I am well aware that Israel was not the aggressor in 1967, but that doesn't justify their subsequent occupation of the Palestinian territories.yes, it bloody well does! Israel was subjected to constant saber-rattling. Up until that point they were able to hold their own, but all it would take would be one war -- just one lost war -- and israel would cease to be. At the time, israel at its narrowest point was about 50km wide, as I recall -- a terrible strategic position (and Golan heights were a great staging area for bombardment). Until a more peacable political arrangement could be secured, israel had no prudent choice but to occupy the west bank.

Remember, too, that those lands weren't taken from the palestianian state -- they were taken from the other arabic countries. if israel 'stole' that land, it stole it from thieves!

Yes, the palestianins should have their own state; but there is no justification for painting the Israeli conquests in 1967 and 1972 and morally dubious. they were fully justified, and in fact necessitated, by the political stance of israel's neighbors.

Again, if we are going to reach into history for justification, let's do so honestly!

Israel was set up as an ethnically exclusive state. Two wrongs don't make a right.Yes, it was a moral wrong. it was also a necessity. the rest of the world didn't forget that jews were jews, and so jews had to very much remember it as well. Israel wasn't created on a whim, it was made to ensure that jews would have a homeland again.

Or to put it another way, I don't care how much you've suffered, ethnic cleansing and an ethnically discriminatory immigration policy are just WRONG.the questionability of your claim of 'ethnic cleansing' aside, I agree: discriminatory state policies are wrong. However, they are, unfortunately, necessary. While two wrongs don't make a right, i see no other way to ensure that jews would have a homeland where they would not be subject to the political whims and barbarities of anti-semites.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but one wrong can counter the other; and this is exactly what happened. Unfortunate, but unavoidable -- that's realpolitik for you.

Zionism precedes Nazism by a considerable number of years.Yeah. And nazism preceded de-segregation, too.

Prior to Nazism, anti-semitism certainly existed, but not at levels notably greater than the level of prejudice displayed against the Gypsies, or the American blacks, for example. So how exactly did the world force the Jews (and yet somehow not Gypsies or African-Americans) to engage in apartheid and ethnic cleansing?You didn't have millions of blacks or gypsies exterminated, that's how.

From 94% to 44%, when you represent 66% of the population... I'm not flaming well surprised the Palestinians rejected it!

Clearly, acceptance of the UN Resolution would have meant substantial numbers of Palestinians having to leave their homes.And why was nothing changed after the Independence War was won by Israel?

Don't forget another little factoid, too: palestinian arabs already have a homeland -- Jordan. It constitutes the majority of the palestinian mandate was was the subject of the Balfour declaration! Israel in effect got a fraction of a fraction. First Jordan was carved out of Palestine, with its largely palestinian population; and then of what remained, Israel was carved up.

Again, I don't see that as justification for occupation of the territories -- but if we are gonna dig up history, let's do so correctly!

However, post second world war, it became increasingly obvious to the West that colonialism is inherently wrong. (Witness the slow disintegrations of the French and British Empires as the conquered nations were allowed to go their own way.) Except to the Jews in Palestine, that is, who were busy setting up a colonial state.And israel is a colonial state -- how?!.

There is only one just solution to the problems of Israel and Palestine: a single, secular state, with no right of return for members of either group. However, that's not something either side will accept.Well, there you go then. So much for the only fair solution.

[The Mad Linguist]

the fact is that while there are alive palestinians who were born on the territory now held by israel, there are also alive israelis who hold the same distinction.

Agreed. Now as matters stand, the latter group get to live there. The former don't. This is not just.

israel didn't occupy the palestinian lands back then

Oh for crying out loud, the ENTIRE STATE OF ISRAEL is occupied Palestinian land!

(If pushed, I will revise my estimate downwards from 100% to 94%).

Yes, it was a moral wrong. it was also a necessity. the rest of the world didn't forget that jews were jews, and so jews had to very much remember it as well. Israel wasn't created on a whim, it was made to ensure that jews would have a homeland again.

Since you agree with me that it was morally wrong, I don't see that the latter two sentences make any difference whatsoever. Why should the Jews have a homeland? Why doesn't the same argument apply to the Gypsies? Or African-Americans?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to Nazism, anti-semitism certainly existed, but not at levels notably greater than the level of prejudice displayed against the Gypsies, or the American blacks, for example. So how exactly did the world force the Jews (and yet somehow not Gypsies or African-Americans) to engage in apartheid and ethnic cleansing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You didn't have millions of blacks or gypsies exterminated, that's how.

So you agree then that prior to the Holocaust, there was no justification for Zionism? Because Zionism was in action 50 years before the Holocaust.

Sizeable numbers of Gypsies were exterminated, by the way. Not as many as Jews, but then Hitler didn't have quite as many Gypsies within murdering range.

The world did not force Zionist Jews to engage in apartheid and ethnic cleansing. They chose to do so because they could, to fulfil a dubious historical-religious claim to land that hadn't been theirs for two thousand years. The monumental trauma of the Holocaust certainly had a lot to do with motivating them. But it does not justify it.

And israel is a colonial state -- how?!.

The Jews who set it up came in from overseas from around the start of the 20th Century onwards. In short, they colonised Palestine and later engaged in a war to expel the population that was there when they arrived. It is a colonial state in the same sense that the US or Australia is. The main difference is that the Palestinians were expelled from their land rather than slaughtered. This means that it is possible for Israel to make amends. However, Israel doesn't seem to want to.

Well, there you go then. So much for the only fair solution.

The fair solution is very often a solution that neither party is willing to accept.

So tell me, what ethnic cleansing were you talking about?


The situation where massacres targetted at a particular ethnic group and perpetuated by another take place... where an ethnic group which was spread throughout the territory ends up in refugee camps in some small corners of that territory or even outside the territory altogether... where land farmed by members of one ethnic group for generations is confiscated by force by another ethnic group... where the victorious ethnic group makes laws allowing their ethnic fellows enhanced immigration rights while denying those rights to the population of the cleansed....

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Glory
They not only would have to prove damages they have to prove that the Exodus happened at all. Not likely
Just one quick point - in a lawsuit you do not have to prove facts that the other side admits are true. I don't think that the Jewish people (or state or whoever it is they would be suing) are likely to deny that Exodus happened at all. I think it is kinda important to them.

[Cleopatra]

Mad Linguist

Two points.

Zionism: of course it predated the Holocaust but it was very much within the spirit of the times. You know very well that the 19th ce and the beginning of the 20thce was the "Era of Nationalism".

1967: Every time Israel was offered to change land with Peace it accepted it with no hesitation. This is how Israel signed the treaty with Egypt.

King Hussein of Jordan never asked to trade the occupied territories for Peace, there is an anectode according to which Dayan used to say that " If Hussein wants to talk about the occupied territories with me he knows my phone number"

But his phone never rung, of course I believe that Dayan although he was the winner he should have made that call, for me Peace is above everything else but we must admit that the Palestinians were above all used by the Arab world and the ex-Soviet Union.

Palestinians will have their state, Mad Linguist and they will have it thanks to Israel and not because the Arab world did something to help them.

[Victor Danilchenko]

The Mad Linguist

Agreed. Now as matters stand, the latter group get to live there. The former don't. This is not just.Denying israel's right to exist is not just either.

Oh for crying out loud, the ENTIRE STATE OF ISRAEL is occupied Palestinian land!how long does it take until a land is no longer considered occupied? In my book, 56 years is plentty enough.

Since you agree with me that it was morally wrong, I don't see that the latter two sentences make any difference whatsoever.Really? then you are as naive as a sophomoric objectivist.

Killing is morally wrong; nonetheless, killing in self-defense is jutified. Ethics is a multidimensional things, and often multiple 'right thing to do' are in conflict -- as they are in israel; Therefore, instead of idiotically condemning the side we happen to dislike, we (and by 'we' I mean rational people) seek reasonable compromise.

Why should the Jews have a homeland? Why doesn't the same argument apply to the Gypsies?As far as i am concerned, it does -- if there was indeed a groundswell of opinion among the gypsies that they need a homeland, it would be a good idea to try to find one for them. The difference of course is that gypsies define themselves as nomand, while jews define themselves as exiles. We never did forget where our home was.

Or African-Americans?Again, what makes aa difference is that jews in galut have wanted a homeland other than their current country of residence, and blacks didn't; and those few that did, formed Liberia.

So you agree then that prior to the Holocaust, there was no justification for Zionism?of course not. The holocaust wasn't the cause of antisemitism, merely its most horrible symptom

Because Zionism was in action 50 years before the Holocaust.My, my, you are a bright one!

Sizeable numbers of Gypsies were exterminated, by the way. Not as many as Jews, but then Hitler didn't have quite as many Gypsies within murdering range.true. however, gypsies didn't demand a homeland.

The world did not force Zionist Jews to engage in apartheid and ethnic cleansing. They chose to do so because they could, to fulfil a dubious historical-religious claim to land that hadn't been theirs for two thousand years. The monumental trauma of the Holocaust certainly had a lot to do with motivating them. But it does not justify it.No, it doesn't justify discriminatory policies (to call it 'apartheid' is simple unabashed idiocy); but it does demonstrate why those policies were necessary.

This is one of those pesky complex and ethically ambiguous things that tend to happen in the real world, you see.

The Jews who set it up came in from overseas from around the start of the 20th Century onwards.They immigrated. They certainly didn't exploit the palestinian arans in any way that would justify calling it 'imperialistic' or 'colonial'.

In short, they colonised Palestine and later engaged in a war to expel the population that was there when they arrived.How are those expulsion claims coming in term of being supported? Anything?

It is a colonial state in the same sense that the US or Australia is.In exactly the same sense, yes; which is not the sense in which people usually talk about colonialism or imperialism.

The main difference is that the Palestinians were expelled from their land rather than slaughtered.they left under the influence of proapaganda. There was no expulsion, dude.

his means that it is possible for Israel to make amends. However, Israel doesn't seem to want to.As I recall, dear, it was hamas-claimed suicide bombing that endangered the current peace process... and it was Arafat who rejected the 2000 Camp David offer.

The fair solution is very often a solution that neither party is willing to accept.And a fair but impractical solution is one that will not take place. As I said, you have to deal with reality, not fantasy.

The situation where massacres targetted at a particular ethnic group and perpetuated by another take place...massacres? Which ones? Yes, there were a couple of very unpleasant incidents that would most certainly qualify as terrorism, and possibly qualify as 'massacres'. However, try to dig up the data on Deir Yassin, and suddenly things become murky. See http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html for an alternative view.

Most importantly, though, a couple of isolated incidents -- and that's what they were -- do not constitute a policy of ethnic cleansing or expulsion.

where an ethnic group which was spread throughout the territory ends up in refugee camps in some small corners of that territory or even outside the territory altogether... where land farmed by members of one ethnic group for generations is confiscated by force by another ethnic group... where the victorious ethnic group makes laws allowing their ethnic fellows enhanced immigration rights while denying those rights to the population of the cleansed....Try to dig up specific references, honey. Reality is not as simple as you think it is. The fact is that there is no evidence demonstrating the existence of a policy of ethnic cleansing or expulsion.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


It didn't happen because Palestinians and the Arab World rejected it this is why the partition didn't happen.I think that we must not forget that.



well, of course they rejected it. If I was to take your wallet, and offer you half the money it, you would ask me where the rest of my money was.



It's absurd to blame one side only in this matter. We know who Sharon is but he was first that took measures of "building trust" by releasing Palestinian prisoners although it wasn't part of the Road map Plan.



The guilt of many of these prisoners would be open to debate, so releasing them is hardly doing any favours.



The fence won't stay for many reasons. First, the boarders of Israel are the pro-1967 although Israel occupies West bamk legitimately. Second, the fence keeps apart even Israeli villages, something terribly absurd, also it contributes very little to Israel's security.



My prediction, the fence isn't going anywhere. It appears to be marking out the Isreali position on the new borders of the state. At a time when the Israeli economy is suffering, spending billions on a fence that is just going to be pulled down makes no sense. It will form the ghetto walls for the Palestinians.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
The Mad Linguist

The Israel after the war of 1948 was pretty much within the UN borders. the lands partitioned to palestinian state were occupied by Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. The terrotories were occupied by Israel during the war of 1967 -- a defensive war. I am not surprised that you didn't know these basic historic facts, as you clearly know little about what actually happened in the region.



Moshe Dayan himself has admitted the 1967 war was anticipated by Israel, and provoked by Israel. Big difference, an army in an attack position is not able to defend itself as easily as an army in a defensive position. By waiting for the Arabs to be in attack formation, while themselves also forming for attack, the attack by Israel was much more effective when they attacked first.

It still doesn't give them ownership of the West Bank, and Ben Gurion himself said it should be given back.



Yes, Israel's existence was immediately denied by arab stated upon its declaration, and israel was immediately attacked. the war of 1948 was a war for survival, nothing less.



Of course the Arabs attacked. Israel knew they would attack. Israel expected they would attack.



Which is was...

Israel was set up as nationalist state -- a state to protect the jews from future atrocities. True, this is a discriminatory foundation -- but it was forced upon jews by the world who refused to treat them as regular people. had european anti-semitism not manifested itself to terribly, there would have been no need for a jewish state.



Except that they then impose an atrocity on those living there. This is a done deal now, Israel is not going away, why not just give the whole of the West Bank and Gaza back?



Oh, and let's not forget -- if you don't believe in historic claims of homeland, then arabs have no claim to israel proper! Sure, their claim is decades old rather than centuiries old, but still, all this time has passed. If jews have no historic claim on israel, then neither do arabs, and the fact of possession is what constitutes the grounds for such a claim.

A little historical perspective, please.

Which is where "The Holocaust Industry" once again muddies the water for Israel. The extent of claims is growing, but this event predates that of the creation of Israel.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


What haven't you heard? That the Palestinians rejected the UN resolution of 1947? Ok. Now that you have this important info don't you think that this changes a bit the image of the Palestinian victims?

If they had accepted the UN resolution, they wouldn't have to leave.



of course they rejected it.



As far as I know, all the nations were established the way Israel was established,some people left some people took their place,if you want to call this method apartheid, I don't have any problem as long as you use it for every modern state. Now in the case of Palestinians the terms that they have put to return are unique in human's History...Israel recognizes them the right to return but it doesn't recognize it the way they want it, this is not the first time that nations will have to negotiate.



Which is, unfortunately, true, Israel, America, Australia, all taken from the people who lived there. Israel is now a fact, and politics is all about the art of the possible.

What can be done to get some sort of peaceful resolution to the mess that now exists, given that low level terrorism as in Northern Ireland, will probably be going to continue for many years to come.



No I am not getting upset regarding this issue, only C.Dodger who claims that he is afraid of me has the talent to make me really furious when we are discussing this matter, we have had some very interesting threads during the previous months regarding this issue, Unique had some very good moments too ( :p ) a couple of members that come form Syria took part in those discussions as well, I can point them for you if you wish.



I am too quick for your crocodiles.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
[b]The Mad Linguist

Denying israel's right to exist is not just either.



this is the same line that Skeptic takes. I don't believe that saying that Israel should not have been founded is the same as saying it has no right to exist. As Cleopatra pointed out, and I have acknowledged, many countries have been founded this way in the past. Israel's existence is now a fact, so I am prepared to deal with that.

[b]

how long does it take until a land is no longer considered occupied? In my book, 56 years is plentty enough.



If you look at Great Britain, moves are being made to give some political autonomy to Wales and Scotland, and these have not been knocked back. This after hundreds of years of occupation.

However, most Palestinians are willing to accept some sort of compromise, and appear to accept that Israel exists, but do want some form of compensation.

Any, maybe not everyone agrees with what is written in your book.



As far as i am concerned, it does -- if there was indeed a groundswell of opinion among the gypsies that they need a homeland, it would be a good idea to try to find one for them. The difference of course is that gypsies define themselves as nomand, while jews define themselves as exiles. We never did forget where our home was.



The jews aspired to a homeland, and did have one they shared with other groups once. However, the process of recreating this homeland appears to have involved several moral and practical dilemmas. The Jews wanted a homeland, but someone else now called it their homeland.




My, my, you are a bright one!

true. however, gypsies didn't demand a homeland.

No, it doesn't justify discriminatory policies (to call it 'apartheid' is simple unabashed idiocy); but it does demonstrate why those policies were necessary.

This is one of those pesky complex and ethically ambiguous things that tend to happen in the real world, you see.

They immigrated. They certainly didn't exploit the palestinian arans in any way that would justify calling it 'imperialistic' or 'colonial'.

How are those expulsion claims coming in term of being supported? Anything?

In exactly the same sense, yes; which is not the sense in which people usually talk about colonialism or imperialism.

they left under the influence of proapaganda. There was no expulsion, dude.

As I recall, dear, it was hamas-claimed suicide bombing that endangered the current peace process... and it was Arafat who rejected the 2000 Camp David offer.

And a fair but impractical solution is one that will not take place. As I said, you have to deal with reality, not fantasy.

massacres? Which ones? Yes, there were a couple of very unpleasant incidents that would most certainly qualify as terrorism, and possibly qualify as 'massacres'. However, try to dig up the data on Deir Yassin, and suddenly things become murky. See http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html for an alternative view.

Most importantly, though, a couple of isolated incidents -- and that's what they were -- do not constitute a policy of ethnic cleansing or expulsion.

Try to dig up specific references, honey. Reality is not as simple as you think it is. The fact is that there is no evidence demonstrating the existence of a policy of ethnic cleansing or expulsion.

Both sides should be ashamed of their behaviour. Either way, the current policy of 'settlements' should be abandoned. Only a small minority of Isrealis even want them. Then we may be able to get some idea of just what can be achieved next.

[Skeptic]

Praying for X does not give one property rights over X, no matter how long or how often one does it for.

The fact that one's ethnic group does not currently have a homeland does not give one property rights over land that some people one is descended from used to occupy.

If one could legitimately make a claim for the land where one's ancestors lived 2,000 years ago, we would have chaos.

You are absolutely correct. Having been your homeland 2000 years ago does NOT give you ownership of the land. All it does is give you the moral right to wish to return there, since you always (for those 2000 years) saw it as your home. And that, indeed, is not sufficient.

This is why the zionist movement--from its ineption in the 1870s to 1948, when israel was founded--BOUGHT, at full price, every square inch of land they lived on.

The historical and moral right to the land was NEVER seen by zionism as sufficient to claim ownership; that is only the starting point, the guide for which land one should buy. No land anywhere became jewish or zionist until TWO conditions are fulfilled: it was historically jewish, giving the jews a moral right to return to live there; and it was legally jewish, that is, jews (in the present) actually bought it from the Arab owners (in the present), without regard to what sort of moral or historical claim the jews have to it.

When did this stop? In 1948, when the Arab nations, in a united attempt to throw the jews into the sea for daring to live where the Arabs don't want them--on land that THEY BOUGHT LEGALLY AND IN FULL PRICE--attempted to throw the jews into the sea. Then--and ONLY then--was land taken by Arabs by force, in self-defence against genocide.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Praying for X does not give one property rights over X, no matter how long or how often one does it for.

The fact that one's ethnic group does not currently have a homeland does not give one property rights over land that some people one is descended from used to occupy.

If one could legitimately make a claim for the land where one's ancestors lived 2,000 years ago, we would have chaos.

You are absolutely correct. Having been your homeland 2000 years ago does NOT give you ownership of the land. All it does is give you the moral right to wish to return there, since you always (for those 2000 years) saw it as your home. And that, indeed, is not sufficient.

This is why the zionist movement--from its ineption in the 1870s to 1948, when israel was founded--BOUGHT, at full price, every square inch of land they lived on.

The historical and moral right to the land was NEVER seen by zionism as sufficient to claim ownership; that is only the starting point, the guide for which land one should buy. No land anywhere became jewish or zionist until TWO conditions are fulfilled: it was historically jewish, giving the jews a moral right to return to live there; and it was legally jewish, that is, jews (in the present) actually bought it from the Arab owners (in the present), without regard to what sort of moral or historical claim they have to it.

When did this stop? In 1948, when the Arab nations, in a united attempt to throw the jews into the sea for daring to live where the Arabs don't want them--on land that THEY BOUGHT LEGALLY AND IN FULL PRICE--attempted to throw the jews into the sea. Then--and ONLY then--was land taken by Arabs by force, in self-defence against genocide.

And all the time they were buying it, the Arabs became aware that this was part of a process that they would end up losing on. For example, once Zionists bought a property, it was only to be sold to Zionists, never back to Arabs.

As I understand it, the US kicks out anyone it believes doesn't have the right to live in it's borders, either, even when they buy things there.

however, that is not the issue, the issue now is the West Bank, Gaza and reparations.

[Victor Danilchenko]

a_unique_person

Both sides should be ashamed of their behaviour.true; although the israelis less so, because they simply did what they had to doto survive. Compare it to theft, for example -- theft is immoral, but stealing to survive is much better than stealing for other reasons. it was an unfortunate necessity.

Either way, the current policy of 'settlements' should be abandoned.Totally agreed.

Then we may be able to get some idea of just what can be achieved next.Wrong. You are again making it seem as if it's all israelis' fault, and up to them to remedy. Sure, Israel should cut the stupid steelement thing -- and arabs should stop killing innocents! guess whose transgression is morally more egregious?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
a_unique_person

true; although the israelis less so, because they simply did what they had to doto survive. Compare it to theft, for example -- theft is immoral, but stealing to survive is much better than stealing for other reasons. it was an unfortunate necessity.



Yet there are Jews living all over the world who are more secure in the countries they live in than the Israelis. No Jew in Australia has ever died in a terrorist bombing.

The only real threat is the violence that is spreading from the Middle East. For example, the terrorist bombing in Bali, a popular place for Australian tourists.



Totally agreed.

Wrong. You are again making it seem as if it's all israelis' fault, and up to them to remedy. Sure, Israel should cut the stupid steelement thing -- and arabs should stop killing innocents! guess whose transgression is morally more egregious?

Ok, so this is where we part ways. In fact, it appears to be just about the biggest sticking point of all.

The settlement process, has been relentless, and has never stopped. Farmers lose their land, villages are cut off, buildings are bulldozed. Archeological digs become a settlement, a communications tower becomes a settlement. A solitary trailer becomes a settlement.

How do you stop this process. These people have armed guards, are armed. If you have a legal ruling that your land has been stolen, it is ignored.

The rule of law has failed. If there is no legal recourse to remedy your grievance, what step do you take next?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Yet there are Jews living all over the world who are more secure in the countries they live in than the Israelis. No Jew in Australia has ever died in a terrorist bombing.

I don't know, looking at this link (http://www.splcenter.org/intelligenceproject/ip-4q6.html) it's hard to tell if there is a place anywhere in the world (including Australia) that is safe for Jews. And that's just year 2000.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I don't know, looking at this link (http://www.splcenter.org/cgi-bin/goframe.pl?refname=/intelligenceproject/ip-4q6.html) it's hard to tell if there is a place anywhere in the world (including Australia) that is safe for Jews. And that's just year 2000.

The link does not work, but I think I said more secure, if you are saying that Jews are still persecuted. Racism, around the world, is still a problem, for many races. I still believe that Jews outside Israel are more secure than those inside Israel.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The link does not work, but I think I said more secure, if you are saying that Jews are still persecuted. Racism, around the world, is still a problem, for many races. I still believe that Jews outside Israel are more secure than those inside Israel.

My apologies. Please try this link (http://www.splcenter.org/intelligenceproject/ip-4q6.html )

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


My apologies. Please try this link (http://www.splcenter.org/intelligenceproject/ip-4q6.html )

Definitely safer outside than in. Most of these attacks were against property, not individuals. There is a large synagogue near where I work, and it hasn't even had so much as graffiti daubed on it, IIRC.

You will note that things have been getting worse, however, after a quiet period. This rise in attacks has been attributed directly to the Middle East situation.

[espritch]

True, this is a discriminatory foundation -- but it was forced upon jews by the world who refused to treat them as regular people. had european anti-semitism not manifested itself to terribly, there would have been no need for a jewish state.

More than two full generations have changed since then, and arabs' claim to land of Israel is qualitatively as much of an 'ancient history' as jews' historic claim to it.

It sounds like you're saying European anti-semitism from 50 years ago can be a justification for what the Israelis did to the Palestinians but Israeli abuses of the Palestinians then have no bearing to what’s going on in Israel today because that’s ancient history.

So if you found out there was a Naxi war criminal living next door to you, you wouldn’t do anything about it since that was ancient history? You know what your answer to that would be. Should it really come as a surprise to you that a lot of Palestians feels similarly about the "acient history" involving the founding of Isreal?

[Victor Danilchenko]

espritch

It sounds like you're saying European anti-semitism from 50 years ago can be a justification for what the Israelis did to the Palestinians but Israeli abuses of the Palestinians then have no bearing to what’s going on in Israel today because that’s ancient history.israel was justified in being established, not in driving out palestinians -- so it's a good thing the latter never occured. Contrawise, nothing justifies a concerted war of terror in the civilian population.

So if you found out there was a Naxi war criminal living next door to you, you wouldn’t do anything about it since that was ancient history?I most certainly wouldn't attack his children!

if they find the few jews who carried on the occasional terrorist acts during Independence War, they should prosecute them. However, this doesn't mean that the country's civilian innocents should be attacked.

Should it really come as a surprise to you that a lot of Palestians feels similarly about the "acient history" involving the founding of Isreal?Should it really come as any surprise that hypocrites like you can't be bothered to think through their positions?

[espritch]

israel was justified in being established, not in driving out palestinians -- so it's a good thing the latter never occured.
Are you sure?

From http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/isr2-j23.shtml

The Revisionist groups used all the training and methods they had developed and used against the British to terrorise and intimidate the Palestinians. The planned terrorist activities, carried out by the Irgun and Lehi, and sanctioned by the Labour Zionists, were to play a major role in driving the Palestinians from their homes. The massacre at Deir Yassin, where more than 200 men, women and children were slaughtered, is only the best-known example. Ben Gurion himself encouraged the Haganah, largely under the control of the Histadrut/Mapai Party and forerunner of the Israeli Defence Forces, to expel the Palestinians from their homes. The expulsion of the Palestinians, who were destined to become refugees in neighbouring countries and dispersed throughout the world, and the takeover of their land were the essential prerequisites for the founding of the state of Israel.

From http://www.netanyahu.org/ismorleg.html

The situation came to a boil at the time of Israeli independence in 1948, with the Deir Yassin incident. In Deir Yassin, a village of about 1,000, roughly 250 people were massacred by elements of the Irgun and the Stern Gang. Menachem Begin was quoted as saying (although possibly not apprised of how bad it was) "accept my congratulations on this splendid conquest … As at Deir Yassin, so everywhere, we will attack and smite the enemy." This understandably caused widespread panic among the Palestinians, and roughly 650,000 left their land, and emigrated as refugees. Those people, and their descendants, feel the Jews effectively stole their land
Begin (who, you'll recall, not only became prime minister, but actually won the Nobel Peace Prize) was also in back of the terror bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946. In fact, terror worked astoundingly well, and these two incidents were pivotal in the founding of Israel. The King David incident, combined with the kidnapping and execution of two innocent British soldiers in reprisal for the execution of several Jewish terrorists, directly caused the British to withdraw. Deir Yassin was instrumental in causing a convenient mass emigration of Arabs. Two huge problems solved.

I most certainly wouldn't attack his children!

And yet a number of those Helicopter Gunship assassinations carried out by the Israeli defense forces have killed Palestinian children and other innocent bystanders. In point of fact, a lot more Palestinians than Israelis have died in the recent fighting and quite a number of them were non combatants – including children.

if they find the few jews who carried on the occasional terrorist acts during Independence War, they should prosecute them. However, this doesn't mean that the country's civilian innocents should be attacked.

I guess it’s too late to prosecute Begin. But for what it’s worth, I actually agree with you that these crimes don’t justify the terrorist attacks against innocent Israelis and I in no way support such actions. I do, however, recognize that there are two sides to every story. The Palestinians have valid reasons to feel that Israel stole half their country. And the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are taken by most Palestinians (correctly I think) as an indication that the Israelis have designs on what remains.

Should it really come as any surprise that hypocrites like you can't be bothered to think through their positions?

Out of morbid curiosity, what exactly is it about my positions that you find hypocritical and not thought out? Is it just that I don’t parrot your world view or is there something more specific?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by corplinx
Historical claims are pointless at this point. The "world" agreed to establish Israel after ww2. Its said and done. Any "historical" claims to more land than was given are pointless.

Historically, some native americans should get manhattan back. However, tough cheese.

To say nothing of the indigenous people whom the "native americans" killed off long before the arrival of europeans. The "Clovis" I believe they were called...

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Mr Manifesto
Yes, there are still arabs alive on the occupied territories who lived on that land. There are also jews alive who were born in Israel, and who have no other home. I am sickened by the rhetoric that exalts the plight of the former while denigrating the lives of the latter. More than two full generations have changed since then, and arabs' claim to land of Israel is qualitatively as much of an 'ancient history' as jews' historic claim to it.

WRONG! There are many arabs who can prove their claims. They can prove that they or their ancestors actually owned land in Israel. I doubt that there is a single jew on earth who can prove that his ancestors owned land in israel 2000 years ago, let alone which land exactly.