Know the boundaries

[Behind the Aegis]

Prospects for peace, already dire since the collapse of the Oslo process, are deteriorating still further. The open anti-Semites of Hamas seem likely to win a significant mandate in Palestine, and those who oppose a Palestinian state still persuade a significant proportion of Israelis. Kadima's project of unilateral disengagement, even if implemented fearlessly, is unlikely to lead to a just settlement of the conflict. We will see more terrorist attacks worldwide, and an intensification of the "war against terror." This context may accelerate the polarization of opinion in the United Kingdom between those who demonize Israel and Jews on the one side, and those who demonize Palestinians and Muslims on the other. We oppose both of these ways of thinking.

The Palestine solidarity movement in the U.K. is dominated by campaigns to boycott Israel. These campaigns divide those who want a just peace, and they portray Israel as a racist pariah state like the old South Africa. For five weeks last year, our union, the Association of University Teachers (AUT), held Israeli academics responsible for the actions of their state in a manner in which it did not propose holding anybody else in the world responsible.

The boycott policy was advocated by people who argue that Israel is the only "illegitimate" state in the world; that Israeli nationalism is essentially different from other nationalism; that Zionism is a form of racism, apartheid or Nazism; that Israel plays a pivotal role in global imperialism; that the Zionist lobby has huge, covert and illegitimate influence; that Israel is guilty of genocide. Some academics, who rightly wanted to do something to help Palestinians, naively went along with this campaign. The boycott campaign discriminated against Zionist Jews and relied on hate-filled generalizations about Israel and Zionism. The boycott campaign amounted to a singling out of Israeli academics, without any politically or morally relevant reason, for special punishment and particular abhorrence.

We forced a full, informed and democratic debate in our union, and the AUT membership overturned the boycott. We will continue to oppose an academic and cultural boycott of Israel, whether the boycotters pursue it openly or covertly. We will oppose ways of thinking that risk licensing an anti-Semitic movement in the U.K. But we will not do so on the basis of a hypocritical defense of academic freedom that stays silent about the impact of the occupation on Palestinian academics and students, or by muting criticism of the wrongful actions of the Israeli state.

more...

[Tom Joad]

1. "Peace process" is being destroyed by Cat Bulldozers in Jerusalem, and

the Beduin villages of Naqab. It is being destroyed by the wall, that an Israeli human rights organization says will seriously interfere with lives of nearly half a million Palestinians and cuts up the West Bank into at least three enclaves - will never be a recognized border but will only exacerbate and prolong the conflict between us and the Palestinians.

How many homes will be destroyed, how many crops buried, how many children shot, before Israel has security?

[pelsar]

2. perhaps lots more....

as long as 'they" insist that we have no right to live in secure boundries...as long as countries keep up with the protocols of zion, as long as people keep insisting that "civilians" can kill israelis and israels defense is always illegal, as long as rockets fly over israels borders daily and its deemed a "non issue"...as long as its neighboring countries can claim they will "wipe israel off the map" and its dismissed as mere rehtoric, as long as children are taught that killing jews is fine...as along as people attempt to paint israel as the "evil of evils", using such false terminology as "genocide" etc

then the killing will continue........because we refuse to submit to "false words of security based on fantasys"...we did that already, it didnt work out to well for us.

[barb162]

5. Dang! You took the words right out of my mouth, pelsar

Again!

[manic expression]

7. Please

What "they" do you speak of? Palestinians want their land and their future from Israel's grip. The UN wants the wall on Israeli land. Does this equal "no right to live in secure boundaries"? Hardly. Spare us your pitiful delusions.

People are fighting Israel because of how Israel has been committing theft, murder and more. Expect a reaction against injustice.

When an Israeli official claims Israel has "no borders, only frontiers" (implying all land of the Middle East belongs to them), you ignore it. When equally disgusting statements are made in support of the wrongdoing of Israel, you sit in supposed approval. THAT is wrong.

As long as Palestinian children are gunned down, as long as Palestinian homes are demolished for no reason (other than domination), as long as Israel continues its oppression and injustice, then the killing will continue.

"...because we refuse to submit to "false words of security based on fantasys"...we did that already, it didnt work out to well for us."

When did you "do that already"? Oh, was that when you purposefully let Christian militias in to slaughter an entire community? Was that when you built a wall on Palestinian land? Was that when you stole land from untold amounts of people during al-Nakba? Was that when you ran over an unarmed and peaceful activist with a bulldozer? Is that when your jets break the sound barrier over communities to disturb and frighten the population? When was that? When?

[pelsar]

9. know your history....

what was 1948, 1967, all about?..cause it sure wasnt about the palestenains......

if i recall correctly, there were about 5 arab armies that invaded israel on the day of its independance....and 67?...same plan...(73...tried again)..and of course the constant terrorist attacks from day one...

start explaining that..and then we can go from there....

[manic expression]

12. Know yours

"Palestinians remember 15 May as "al-Nakba", or the Catastrophe.

The year had begun with Jewish and Arab armies each staging attacks on territory held by the other side. 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. 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. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm

Start with that.

[pelsar]

13. the arab armies...

their goal was?

[manic expression]

16. Sidestep much?

"Irgun and Lehi massacred scores of inhabitants of the village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem on 9 April."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm

What was that? Self-defense? :puke:

The Zionists were stealing PALESTINIANS' LAND. Not the other way around.

[pelsar]

18. your miss the point....

back to the big picture...and then we'll go do to "massacre vs massacre"...terrorist attack vs terrorist attack...we can compare if you would like...

but back up to the larger picture first...those invading arab armies of 48 and 67...their intentions?...(try to answer... since this is the core of the matter)

[manic expression]

20. No

you're missing the massacres.

1948. Zionists sieze Palestinian land and commit massacres. That is theft and murder. That is the core of the matter.

Now I will address your straw-man. The Arab Armies were fighting against the Zionists, who were outright stealing land. They stole no land, while the Zionists did in great abundance. With whom does the injustice lie? That is painfully obvious.

[pelsar]

21. no "strawman"...

just take the time to write out the sentence as to what the intentions of the arab armies of 48 and 67...it will only take you a few sentences...."fighting zionism" is kinda general...

i'm guessing but i guess you mean the destruction of israel as a country, since it was based on zionism.



I promise to return to the massacres and theft and murder after ...just need to know where you stand on those events.

[manic expression]

23. Yes, it is

because you have refused to address the FACT of the massacres against civilians.

I've been taking quite a bit of time to deal with your ignorant viewpoint, so at least be grateful for that much.

"Fighting Zionism" was exactly what it was about. They were fighting groups who were stealing land from their people, as well as murdering them. I fail to see the wrong in that.

[pelsar]

28. the massacres...

and the fighting were a "result" of the intentions of the arab armies of 48 and 67 to massacre and "wipe off the map" israel and all its jewish inhabitants....thats why their intentions are relevant...and probably why you refuse to answer that very question. (not that i justify the massacres btw), the "stolen land" however is not so simplistic.

taken into context....and the fact that many of those jews had survived the holocaust its no wonder they had little doubt what the invading armies had in store for them: murder, massacres, etc.

which is probably why you refuse to anwer the simply question of the arab armies ultimate intentions upon their invasion.....but i get the impression that from your point of view, israel was a mistake and justice would have been served had the arab armies succeeded in 48 and 67..just my impression, you can confirm it, if you believe so.....

or deny it, but then you would have to explain the invading armies intentions that you seem to support....

__________________________________

as far as masscres go:...there is quite a list of arab massacres against jews.....its not really relevant (but we can list them if you would like) for an intelligent discussion about the issue.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

45. much clearer....

The Arabs were the ones being invaded! How could they launch an "invasion" on their own land?...

the invading arab armies:
The day after the state of Israel was declared five Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq immediately invaded Israel
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm


were not actually invading, but attacking the zionist who invaded from europe and those jews who were born in palestine and were attempting an uprising...i think thats what your saying....did i get it correct?

and whos goal (i"m guessing since you arent clear here) is to put down the rebellion, take back the land and ...now i'm confused, why did the invading armies keep the land for their own countries? and what to do with the jews?

___________
btw on a sidenote, this contradicts your original thesis of "no wall no settlements = no terror, since your definition of "stolen land" starts from pre 1948/47,

[manic expression]

103. Yet you can't see

At that point, the Zionists had already stolen much of Palestine. Many thousands of innocents were evicted, many were slaughtered. The Arab armies were in opposition to that. They were trying to regain that which was stolen. How is that wrong? It isn't.

On your sidenote:

It doesn't. The situation has changed since 1948. The wall is ensuring control over land that doesn't belong to Israel. Zionists stole a great amount of land in 1948, make no mistake; today, however, going back to pre-1967 borders would be ideal and reasonable. The wall should not be built, as it is a blatant land grab. How does the recognition of previously stolen land make more theft right? Please....

[eyl]

51. And the puprose of the massacres of Jews

in that same war (and before) was?

[Coastie for Truth]

32. Read some history

You asserted

you're missing the massacres.

1948. Zionists sieze Palestinian land and commit massacres. That is theft and murder. That is the core of the matter.

Now I will address your straw-man. The Arab Armies were fighting against the Zionists, who were outright stealing land. They stole no land, while the Zionists did in great abundance. With whom does the injustice lie? That is painfully obvious.

The Brits and the French, as the victors of WW1, seized the land the land from the Muslim Turks and carved up the map . They did not carved it up for the House of Saud, or the Hasehmites, or the Lebanese, or the Palestinians, or the Zionists. They cared it up to provide weak, warring states on the eastern littoral of the Mediterranean, so that no one could challenge their hold on "their oil" or "their Suez Canal" or "their East African and South African colonies" or "their South Asian Colonies' .

And what did those who got the biggest slice of pie do, the Saudis? They spent it on frivolities, bordellos and casinos and race horses - but nothing on the poor Bedouins. JUts like the description in Karl Marx.


Face it - the "House" (the French and Brits) took all the chips and all the face cards - and then said "PLAY."

[sabbat hunter]

157. stole no land?

then pray tell why a palestinian state wasnt declared in 1948 but instead the west bank and gaza became subjugated to egypt and jordan?

[Colorado Blue]

49. What about the destruction of Jewish holdings and the ethnic

cleansing of, first the West Bank and subsequently, the entire Middle East?

The Israelis lost 1% of their population in the War of 1948 and all their crops. The destruction was extreme.

Most of the Palestinians who fled never even saw an Israeli soldier - at least 10% left before a shot was fired.

Meanwhile, the Grand Mufti was promising to exterminate every Jew in the region. He promised a bloodbath, akin to the Mongol invasions.

This is hardly the simple, black and white situation some would like to present.

What we need to do now is find ways to help the people who are still living in camps, 60 years after the fact. Nobody seems to want them, few will grant them citizenship, allow them to buy property or even hold jobs. Hoping for the destruction of Israel is hardly a solution, actively working for this end, a tragedy in the making, that will never bring justice or peace.

Yet I almost never hear any real concern, and NEVER any concrete ideas, as to how regional governments can be made to recognize that this situation, which never should have arisen in the first place, must now be solved without further violence.

[centristo]

69. google "no borders, only frontiers"

and tell me what comes up. The link is to a dead forum, but still.


Madhanee,

Ummah is a concept independent of a piece of land. The Islamic state has no borders only frontiers.

The concept of Ummah is related to the Islamic ideology as its uniting factor.

Wahdat not Ittehad
/snip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah

Now, which Israeli official made the claim the Israel has "no borders, only frontiers"?

[sabbat hunter]

111. so are the israelis

are the israelis solely to blame for the problems between it and the surrounding arab countries? or is some blame for the problems to be on their shoulders too?

[Behind the Aegis]

3. is that the ONLY thing destroying the peace process? n/t

[Andromeda]

4. The wall is for Israel's security.

And trying to deny the danger Israel is constantly subjected to is absurd. The wall just makes it more difficult for the suicide bombers to sneak in and destroy lives and property.

Maybe if the Palestinians militants would stop firing rocket launchers at Israel the IDF wouldn't retaliate.

Palestinians have a choice. Stop the violence against Israel and Israel won't shoot back. That's what is prolonging the conflict.

[manic expression]

6. Right...

which is exactly why it is on Palestinian land.... Oh, wait... :eyes:

It is not for Israel's security. It is to further oppress Palestinians. The fact that it has been declared illegal by the UN should tell you something.

No one's denying the "danger" to Israel. However, that "danger" is fueled precisely by these unjustified actions. Also, to deny the wrongful aggression that Israel is exerting upon Palestine is beyond absurd, and quite disgusting.

IDF has been continuously a menace to Palestinians, murdering and intimidating with little restraint. Moreover, Israel has been blatantly stealing land. Of course people will fight back when faced with such atrocity. Stop the injustice, and the reactions against it will stop as well.

It is clear that Israel has the choice. Who, exactly, is occupying whom? Israel is perpetuating the violence and oppression, Palestinians are fighting against it. Israel's base actions (along with the mindset you are displaying) are the cause of the problem.

[Colorado Blue]

8. Right. And who was infringing in the 1920's? The PLO was

formed long before the West Bank was taken to prevent Israel's destruction.

Terror began long before Israel was formed.

Warfare was hardly inevitable, peace treaties could have been in place decades ago, statehood could have been declared back when Clinton was President.

Instead, since Oslo, violence has escalated alarmingly. We're looking at a situation now in which Hamas, another outfit dedicated to Israel's destruction, might actually get elected.

What constitutes safe borders in this situation? The withdrawal from Gaza resulted in immediate rocket attacks, some in retaliation for things Israel didn't do, like the explosion of Hamas weaponry by accident. Suicide attacks have continued, including a thwarted attack targeting children.

Also, what would happen to the Israelis stranded beyond the wall?

[manic expression]

11. Just who was infringing?

The Zionists were. Jewish terrorist groups were active long before then. Nice try.

"Terror began long before Israel was formed."

Yes, it did, thanks to the Zionists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1929_36.stm

Occupation was not inevitable. Israel refused to actually negotiate with Palestine.

"...Hamas, another outfit dedicated to Israel's destruction, might actually get elected."

And Sharon, the man responsible for the slaughters at Sabra and Shatila, has actually BEEN elected. Oh, and IDF, an outfit dedicated to the oppression of Palestine, has been in power for quite awhile. They don't even need to get elected. That's been the disgusting situation we've been looking at in Israel for some time.

So are you saying, in order to have safe borders, Israel must dominate all of Palestine? Please. The withdrawal from Gaza included an iron fist on its borders, airspace, ports and other things vital to its well being. You also forget the fact that the West Bank is occupied as well, which is also Palestine.

"...including a thwarted attack targeting children."

"Other Israeli targets included a school and buildings that Israel claimed were used to make rockets. Israeli jets broke the sound barrier over the Gaza Strip several times at the weekend, adding to the tension."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1578140,00.html

[Colorado Blue]

46. Right. I think I get it.

I guess the basic idea is to show that Israel is bad, shouldn't exist, even though it was innocent Jews who were attacked in the 1920's and 1930's IT WAS THEIR FAULT FOR BEING THERE, even if they'd been there for thousands of years, as at Hebron, even if they were simply trying to buy land and farm - oh - pesky Jews - bad, bad, bad. Better they should have stayed in Russia and gotten killed I guess, along with all those Mizrachi and Sephardic Jews from all over the Middle East, who make up the majority of Israeli Jews.

Hmmmm. Too bad nobody wants them, or will only "tolerate" them if they are very, very quiet and literally, keep their heads DOWN.

Did you know the largest Jewish community that remains in the Middle East, outside of Israel, is the Iranian community of 25,000? It had been 75,000, but 3/4 have fled since the Shi'a mullahs took over. At least Iran didn't actually expel their communities - alone in the entire Middle East. And only the Maronite Christians in Lebanon, out of all the people in the region, spoke out against the targeting of Middle Eastern Jews after 1948.

And, even though it was actually Lebanese Christians who attacked at Sabra and Shatilla and similar attacks were carried out by Syrians, It Was 100% Israel's Fault, and the PLO has been held accountable for tens of thousands of Lebanese Christian deaths - that must be Israel's fault too, along with the Lebanese Civil War; Black September in Jordan - ditto, right?

Also 1948, 1967, 1973, the intifadas, etc etc etc, all created out of thin air by those pesky Zionists. I guess they are responsible also for all the other wars in the Middle East - Iran-Iraq, the Gulf Wars, the Soviets in Afghanistan; maybe even Darfur, certainly the Ba'ath party and all the extremist organizations and all the corrupt governments, the repression, the human rights violations, throughout this enormous region.

We get it.

The rockets are launching themselves, the suicide bombers actually blow up by accident, the several wars have merely materialized out of thin air.

It's magic. Dang, I never realized it until now. A war caused all by one side, which has created all this violence all by itself, in a vacuum.

Amazing. This has got to be a first in the history of mankind.

But it sure is the same ol' scapegoat.

[manic expression]

55. No, you don't

Sorry, but building up straw-men won't improve your argument.

Israel's actions of land theft and murder ARE bad. That much is clear.

Jews had lived in Palestine since time immemorial, but the Zionist settlers did not.

"A few Zionist immigrants had already started arriving in the area before 1897. By 1903 there were some 25,000 of them, mostly from Eastern Europe. They lived alongside about half a million Arab residents in what was then part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. A second wave of about 40,000 immigrants arrived in the region between 1904 and 1914."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1897.stm

"The Zionist project of the 1920s and 1930s saw hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrating to British Mandate Palestine, provoking unrest in the Arab community.

In 1922, a British census showed the Jewish population had risen to about 11% of Palestine's 750,000 inhabitants. More than 300,000 immigrants arrived in the next 15 years."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1929_36.stm

Does that help?

Oh, wait, so since Jews have been oppressed elsewhere, they now have the right to oppress and kill other people for no reason? BS. That has nothing to do with the pain and wrongdoing Israel has inflicted upon the people of Palestine and elsewhere. An injustice does not justify another injustice. If anything, the only connection is that Israel has emulated and recreated the same terrors brought upon Jews in Palestine. Lose your little persecution complex, because it is only blinding you (in regard to this situation).

Did you even know what happened in 1948? Al-Nakba happened. Thanks for ignoring that.

"And, even though it was actually Lebanese Christians who attacked at Sabra and Shatilla..."

Yes, with the Israeli Army sorrounding the camps, after being not only allowed in by Israel but virtually invited to do exactly what they did, Israel had nothing to do with it? Israel had everything to do with it. They let the militias in with the intention of having slaughters occur.

"From 16 to 18 September, the Phalangists - who were allied to Israel - killed hundreds of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps as they were encircled by Israeli troops in one of the worst atrocities of nearly a century of conflict in the Middle East. Mr Sharon resigned from his post as defence minister after a 1983 Israeli inquiry concluded that he had failed to act to prevent the massacre."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1982.stm

Yeah, Israel had nothing to do with it...:sarcasm:

1948 saw the Zionists steal land and murder innocents. 1967 saw Israel make a "pre-emptive" strike against Arab nations and take yet more land, which displaced (evicted) around 500,000 Palestinian civilians. The intifadas were uprisings against the unjustified occupation of Palestine.

So no, I guess you don't get it.

[barb162]

70. From where is this quote coming?

"Terror began long before Israel was formed."

Certainly not the BBC article you linked two lines below the quoted sentence.

In addition, from your linked BBC article it states just the opposite, that Palestinian terrorism started long before the state of Israel came into existence.

"Zionist-Arab antagonism boiled over into violent clashes in August 1929 when 133 Jews were killed by Palestinians and 110 Palestinians died at the hands of the British police."

[manic expression]

74. Nice try

"Arab discontent again exploded into widespread civil disobedience during a general strike in 1936. By this time, the militant Zionist group Irgun Zvai Leumi was orchestrating attacks on Palestinian and British targets with the aim of "liberating" Palestine and Transjordan (modern-day Jordan) by force."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1929_36.stm

Get it?

[eyl]

79. 1929 precedes 1936, last I checked

For that matter, the Etzel only came into existence in 1931.

Pop quiz: what prompted the Etzel's split from the Haganah?

[manic expression]

83. 1936 predates 1948

the poster was claiming the Israelis had committed no violence up until then. That proves the other poster wrong.

Palestinians and Zionists were killed in 1929. It was also, at least in part, caused by the Zionist settlements. This much was agreed upon by numerous official British reports.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/United-Nations,-The-Palestine-Problem/Story718.html

Here's just one (on the events of 1929):

"A special Commission, headed by Sir Walter Shaw, a retired Chief Justice of the Straits Settlements, investigated this outbreak. The Shaw Commission observed:

'In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents. It is obvious then that the relations between the two races during the past decade must have differed in some material respect from those which previously obtained. Of this we found ample evidence. The reports of the Military Court and of the local Commission which, in 1920 and in 1921 respectively, enquired into the disturbances of those years, drew attention to the change in the attitude of the Arab population towards the Jews in Palestine. This was borne out by the evidence tendered during our inquiry when representatives of all parties told us that before the War the Jews and Arabs lived side by side if not in amity, at least with tolerance, a quality which to-day is almost unknown in Palestine'."

More (same link):

"The report of the military commission of inquiry was not published at the time, but was referred to in the report of the Royal Commission in 1937. The underlying causes of the riots were cited as:

'The Arabs' disappointment at the non-fulfilment of the promises of independence which they believed to have been given them in the War.

'The Arabs' belief that the Balfour Declaration implied a denial of the right of self-determination and their fear that the establishment of a national home would mean a great increase of Jewish immigration and would lead to their economic and political subjection to the Jews.'"

There's more.

Cause and effect.

Go ahead, answer your own quiz question.

[barb162]

88. Again, from where are you quoting this sentence. Link Please

"Terror began long before Israel was formed." It is not in your link. Did you mistakenly put your own words in quotes? If not and it is quoted material, please supply the link for the sourced material

[manic expression]

91. But of course

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=112844&mesg_id=112903

I was using what the other poster said, but showing that Zionists were active in terrorism.

Yeah, I can see how it could be misunderstood.

[pelsar]

10. pre67

you seem to be stuck......post 67...except the history of israel and attacks upon its civilians is previous to that.....our starting point is about 1920 at least for the immediate geographical area.....try explaining the attacks from that point, not post 73.

[manic expression]

14. Stuck, indeed

Zionist militants were active in the region far before 1967. Massacres and theft of land first occurred far before 1967.

Want to explain that?

[pelsar]

15. pre 67...

and the arab armies intent was....... (include the 5 arab armies invading in 48....exactly what were their intentions?)

[manic expression]

17. See my other post

Zionists committed massacres against civilians. They stole land. What was their intent?

[pelsar]

19. survive.....

just survive in a their historical homeland, given 2,000 years of being massacred, and kicked out of country after country, being a second class citizen all over the world, the "highpoint" being the holocaust and its aftermath of few who would take in the jews who survived...that what it was all about.

[manic expression]

22. Dominate, colonize, murder

That was the intent. The Zionists took land that did not belong to them, which is theft. They kicked people off of THEIR LAND, which is theft. They massacred many, which is murder. This disgusting pattern has continued to the present.

No one has justification for stealing something from someone else. Jewish people do not have manifest destiny for anything. To suggest as much is promoting theft and ethnic cleansing. Palestine was not their land, and they STOLE it with no justification. An injustice is not justification for injustice in another situation. The Zionists have created injustice, massacres, second class citizenry and ethnic cleansing in Palestine. THAT IS WRONG, IT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. So now since atrocities are committed on one group, they are allowed to do the EXACT SAME THINGS to other people? That is wrong and hypocritical. However, Palestinians will not go silently into the night.... Using that logic, I guess the Zoroastrians in India can have all of Persia, right? :eyes:

What Israel has done has nothing to do with historical oppression of Jews. Furthermore, its actions are equal to or worse than that oppression.

I would also like to remind you that your disgusting rhetoric of "historical homeland", "history of subjugation" and other such filth was central to the mindsets that brought about, among other things, the holocaust.

By the way, I did not adequately express how wrong you are. Words partially failed me in regards to your insane colonialist views.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[manic expression]

29. Excuse you?

I'm sorry, but that is quite insane.

How does opposing policies of theft and murder equal extermination? Actually, it is in opposition to extermination.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[manic expression]

38. This is laughable

How do I suggest that Jews should be treated badly? That is a baseless and ludicrous assertion.

Israel is subjugating a people. I oppose that. Jews and Judaism have nothing to do with it.

By the way, slander is bad.

[Jim Sagle]

35. There is no policy of theft and murder, and everybody goddamn

well knows it.

The Israelis bought much of the land they have, were legally granted most of the rest, and took the remainder by winning wars in which their enemies intended to annihilate them.

Excuse yourSELF.

[manic expression]

37. There is

that is why innocent Palestinians are gunned down. That is why settlements are in existence. That is why Palestinian homes are demolished. That is why a wall is being built on Palestinian land.

Here is but a taste:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1516268,00.html

The Israelis stole land. This is painfully obvious.

"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."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm

[pelsar]

44. small detail you forgot?

The day after the state of Israel was declared five Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq immediately invaded Israel

your link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm

funny how the article doesnt really state WHY they were invading....i suspect to massacre the jews and grab the land (which they did), but thats just my guess.....

your take is?

[manic expression]

60. Small detail you mistook

Small detail you missed:

"The year had begun with Jewish and Arab armies each staging attacks on territory held by the other side. 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. 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."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm

That happened BEFORE the Arab armies invaded. The Zionists invaded, the Arabs were fighting the invasion and the theft that came in its wake. That's WHY.

[eyl]

67. II suggest you consult a more detailed source

Violence against Jews began almost immediately after the partition vote on November 29, 1947.

From wikipedia

On the day following the adoption of the UN resolution seven Jews were killed by Arabs in Palestine in three separate incidents: at 8 o'clock in the morning, in what came to be seen as the opening shots of the 1948 War, three Arabs attacked a bus from Netanya to Jerusalem, killing five Jewish passengers. Half an hour later a second bus attack left one passenger dead. Later in the day a twenty-five-year old man was shot dead in Jaffa, where wild rumors spread about alleged attacks on Arabs by Jews. Arab prisoners also attempted to assault Jews in Acre prison, but were beaten back by guards. In Jerusalem the Arab Higher Committee called a three-day general strike from Tuesday, 2 December to be followed by mass demonstrations after Friday prayers. The Committee's statement included eight resolutions, the last of which called on the British Government "to hand over Palestine forthwith to its Arab people". On 2 December a mob looted and burned shops in the Jewish commercial district in Jerusalem, unopposed by British forces. From the beginning of the strike onwards Arab and Jewish clashes escalated and by 11 December the Jerusalem correspondent of The Times estimated that at least 130 people had died, "about 70 of them being Jews, 50 Arabs, and among the rest three British soldiers and one British policeman".

In January and February**, Arab irregular forces attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine but achieved no substantial successes.

The Arabs concentrated their efforts on cutting off roads to Jewish towns and Jewish neighborhoods in areas with mixed populations. They also massacred several Jewish convoys. At the end of March, the Arabs completely cut off the vital road going from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, where one sixth of Palestine's Jews lived.

In addition, the Jewish communities in Gush Etzion were under siege since December 1947 (again, before April) - and these communities were not in the territory designated for the Palestinian state. The remaining defenders were massacred after their surrender several months later. Explain to me please, why this isn't land theft?

And how does your version account for the nonexistence of a Palestinian state between 1948-1967?

*i.e. well before April

[manic expression]

77. Again, you overlook

My source is quite reputable and detailed. Please take a look at what it has to say about the matter.

"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. On 29 November 1947, 33 countries of the UN General Assembly voted for partition, 13 voted against and 10 abstained. The plan, which was rejected by the Palestinians, was never implemented.

Britain announced its intention to terminate its Palestine mandate on 15 May 1948 but hostilities broke out before the date arrived....

Both Arab and Jewish sides prepared for the coming confrontation by mobilising forces. The first 'clearing' operations were conducted against Palestinian villages by Jewish forces in December."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1947.stm

Fighting broke out on both sides. Furthermore, did you get the part about "clearing operations"? Guess what they were for (hint: they weren't clearing brush).

On the siege:
"The United Nations partition plan for Palestine of November 29, 1947 placed the Etzion Bloc in the interior of the intended Arab state. Very soon fighting broke out in many parts of Palestine. The position of the Etzion Bloc on the important Jerusalem-Hebron road made it an important flash-point. Traffic on the road was often attacked and began to move only in armed convoys. Arab forces attacked Jewish convoys, while Haganah forces stationed in the Bloc attacked Arab and British traffic. Attacks on the settlements themselves occurred. In January 1948, the children of Kfar Etzion were evacuated to Jerusalem together with most of the mothers and old or sick people. The Zionist leadership rejected any suggestion of abandoning the settlement entirely, both because of the overall policy to hold onto all Jewish settlements whatever the cost, and because the Etzion Bloc, reinforced by Haganah fighters, played a useful role in obstructing Arab traffic along the road from Hebron to Jerusalem."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Etzion_massacre

That explains some of it, no?

What remained of Palestine after 1948 was occupied by Arab nations to guard against Israel, as well as the possibility of taking back stolen land.

[eyl]

82. Your source may be reputable

detailed, it isn't.

I didn't say hostilities hadn't broken out prior to May 1948; I said that the initial attacks were against Jews. For that matter, the "clearing" operations (which your "detailed" source fails to give a single location of)at that stage were a response to Jewish communities (particularly in the Jerusalem area) being placed under siege and convoys there being attacked; acts which began right after the partition declaration.

As for the Block, your excerpt explains what? It itself states that the Block (which was in the international zone, not part of the Palestinian state, for what that matters) came under attack. The siege of the communities there began within two weeks of the partition declaration. Or are you claiming it's legitimate to destroy a community and take the land it's on for military reasons? If so, what exactly is your beef with the Yishuv?

What remained of Palestine after 1948 was occupied by Arab nations to guard against Israel, as well as the possibility of taking back stolen land.

:rofl:

[manic expression]

84. Yes, it is detailed

The reputable source notes that Jews were clearing Palestinians. That is quite enough to know that, at the very least, much (more like most) of the violence and wrongdoing was with the Zionists. I would like to remind you that Zionist militant groups were active for more than a decade. Moreover, the attacks started immediately and quite simultaneously. To say the Arabs were at fault for the violence is ridiculous. As a matter of fact, it is the contrary.

The Zionists were clearing Palestines of their land. Why do you continue to sidestep this? Also, I would love to see what it was in "response" to.

Yes, Arabs were mildly upset that 30% of the population, most recent immigrants, were given 57% of the land. I would be, too. However, the Zionists ended up taking (stealing) about 80% of Palestine by the end of the 1948 conflict. Who's the aggressor?

Do I need to paint you a picture?
"...placed the Etzion Bloc in the interior of the intended Arab state."

What's more is that you ignored the FACT that the Zionists refused to evacuate the community. They did this to try to gain land that didn't belong to them (this pattern sums up the history of Israel pretty well).

[eyl]

92. I'm sorry?

What's more is that you ignored the FACT that the Zionists refused to evacuate the community. They did this to try to gain land that didn't belong to them (this pattern sums up the history of Israel pretty well).

It didn't belong to them...why? Because you said so? In that case, I assume you would have accepted if Israel had removed every single Arab community which was within the Israeli borders?

Do I need to paint you a picture?
"...placed the Etzion Bloc in the interior of the intended Arab state."

If you look at a map, the Block was inside the international zone, which was in turn surrounded by the Arab state.

Yes, Arabs were mildly upset that 30% of the population, most recent immigrants, were given 57% of the land. I would be, too. However, the Zionists ended up taking (stealing) about 80% of Palestine by the end of the 1948 conflict. Who's the aggressor?

Do you suppose the Zionists were upset that over half of that %57 was desert? Would that justify anyhting? I don't see your problem with the rest, given that you seem to feel destroying communities is all right given some military need; and while the partition borders were (barely) viable had the partition undergone peacefully, they were not viable in a conflict (looking at a map, a hostile Arab state could easily cut the Jewish state into at least three pieces)

The reputable source notes that Jews were clearing Palestinians. That is quite enough to know that, at the very least, much (more like most) of the violence and wrongdoing was with the Zionists. I would like to remind you that Zionist militant groups were active for more than a decade. Moreover, the attacks started immediately and quite simultaneously. To say the Arabs were at fault for the violence is ridiculous. As a matter of fact, it is the contrary.

The Zionists were clearing Palestines of their land. Why do you continue to sidestep this? Also, I would love to see what it was in "response" to.

Again - what did the destruction of Jewish communities in that war signify? For that matter, what did the destruction of the Jewish community of Hebron in 1929 signify?

[manic expression]

99. Are you?

To your first two comments, look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan

Were the Zionists "happy"? Probably not, because they then began to steal more, which has continued until today.

I never said the massacre was justified. However, you have never recognized that the settlements were used to grab land. Furthermore, you seem to ignore the massacres of Palestinians that happened in conjunction with land theft.

What did it signify? Ask the British, who saw the underlying cause as the Zionist settlements, as well as the Balfour Declaration. Jews and Arabs had lived very peacefully up until the Zionist invasion. In one of my previous posts, I cited them directly.

(by the way, I can't respond to anymore your posts for today, so expect responses tommorow. Thanks)

[eyl]

100. Please explain how

Kfar Etzion (or the others) was used to "grab alnd". Or are you advancing the position that Jews had no right to buy land?

[pelsar]

112. eyl...perhaps i can help...

i get the impression from M. E. that he/she is not being very clear as to the basic stand:

the "zionists" (i.e. jews with a connection to their history and culture) had no right to buy land from the arabs in palestine, let alone buy land and make settlements.

i've gotten this impression from several comments, one of them being that the invading arab armies were not invading, since how can they invade their own land.

others that seem to claim that any and all "zionist" town/settlements, etc were all based on stolen land.
________________________

Perhaps ME would like to clear up, either confirm or further explain the above impressions?

[eyl]

115. And this also implies

that the Arabs in general and the Palestinians are interchangable - a position I suspect ME would reject if it was suggested the expulsion of Jews from the Arab countries cancels out the expulsion of Palestinians...

[mike_c]

121. violence BY ZIONISTS against British and Palestinians was the reason...

...for the partition in the first place. Israel was awarded 55 percent of the land in Palestine even though the Jews accounted for less than 30 percent of the population, and owned only 7 percent of the land legally-- that was largely due to Zionist terrorism prior to the partition by organizations like Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi. Then Israel seized the remainder in 1948, and Haganah had already planned for the event (Plan Delat).

[pelsar]

126. complain to the UN...

they established the borders....and those foolish jews...they actually had a plan for if they were attacked!....can you believe that, after 2,000 years of not having one, of just being massacred they really pulled a fast one, they had a plan!!!

gottal love this complaint: the israelis had a plan in case they were attacked....should have called a UN emergency session on that one.

[mike_c]

128. are you capable of discussing without mocking...?

You do yourself little credit by taking that tone.

[pelsar]

135. when the points are serious...so am i

complaining that the israelis had a plan in case the arabs tried to anihilate them is hardly a serious point...unless i missed something.

[eyl]

132. Violence

against Jews was what triggered the violence against Arabs. In particular, the Etzel (Irgun) was formed by a group of Haganah members who disagreed with that organization's havlaga policy - under which they would defend attacked points but not undertake any offensive action.

As for your details of partition - then numbers are more or less correct, but missing some context. Israel was awarded 55% of the land, but over half of that 55% was desert. Also, while Jews owned ~8% of the land, it's not true, as is often implied, that the rest was owned by Palestinians; in fact, Arabs owned somewhere around 20% of the land. The rest was owned by the state.

[manic expression]

136. And the Zionists

were the reason for the protests and conflict. More precisely, the Balfour Declaration (1917), which clearly favored the Zionists, was quite a factor. Jews and Arabs lived together in the region for centuries, that is, before the Zionist expansion.

It is true that the Irgun attacked Palestinian and British targets (later, they blatantly stole land and evicted inhabitants, killing as they went).

It doesn't matter how much was desert or not; the Zionists got more land than they should have gotten. If it was insignificant land, then why didn't Israel just give it up since they weren't going to use it anyway? Also, the state may have owned that land, but who lived on it?

[eyl]

140. The Balfour declaration

might have favored Jews, but that favor didn't translate into "facts on the ground" - read the White Papers' restrictions on Jews sometime.

If the land was assigned to the Jewish state, why exactly should they have given it up? Your contention was that the Zionists were favored because they got more land - I pointed out that's not true if you take into acount the quality of the land in question, rather than sheer area.

As for who lived on state-owned land - some of it was inhabited, most wasn't; but from a legal POV, it doesn't matter - they didn't own it, and the UN had the authority to assign that land. Also, you're again confusing ownership with sovereignity.

[eyl]

52. Well, I apologize

for the Jewish forces not willing to commit suicide by stopping at the UN-demarcated line which the Palestinians (and other Arabs) had rejected

[manic expression]

61. But

Israeli forces are willing to build a wall on land that doesn't belong to them. Israeli forces are willing to senselessly kill Palestinians. Israelis are willing to inhabit settlements on Palestinian land; effectively taking it. Israeli forces are willing to bulldoze the homes of innocents and kick them off their land. Israel is willing to keep Palestinians imprisoned on their own land; controlling movement and life itself.

NOT stealing land does not equal suicide at all, and actually equals justice. However, Israelis are not willing to do that, are they?

[pelsar]

64. its not the wall....

and its not the settlements....you've made your self very clear....its the state of israel itself....

as far as i understand, if and when israel pulls back and the attacks continue, you'll be using the same narative...zionists stole the land, massacred the inhabitands, have no "historical/cultural claims" to the land...etc

i.e. the problem is the existance of israel itself, hence the palestenains have every right to continue to attack....did i get that right?

[manic expression]

80. No, you didn't

as usual. :eyes:

More straw-men? Oh well. Simply pulling out isn't the issue. Will a "pull-out" knock down the wall? No. Will a "pull-out" rebuild houses? No. Will a "pull-out" bring people back to life? No.

As demonstrated in Gaza, an Israeli "pull-out" means the physical presence may temporarily end, but not the real control.

[eyl]

66. Make up your mind

are you discussing 1948 or 2005? I'm not going to continue this game where I make a statement on the former (in response to yours) and your "reply" ignores it and jumps 6 decades.

[manic expression]

87. If you wanted to talk about

a single period, specify as much.

You were referring to 1948? Fine. I wonder, they couldn't resist evicting Palestinians, and committing atrocities against them, because it would be "suicide"?

[eyl]

98. your snideness aside

As I've explained above - the parition borders were barely viable in the case of a peaceful split. Once it became a state of war, however, those borders were suicidal - a hostile Arab state could cut the Jewish state into at least three pieces easily, not to mention that Israeli communities which ended up in the Palestinian or international areas came under attack (at least 13 Jewish communities were destroyed in 1948 - including the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem)

[manic expression]

104. Your mistakes aside

The partition borders were already unfair, but the Zionists pushed out of them to gain more land for themselves. The borders were not suicidal at all. If the Israeli forces stayed within their borders, not only would they have NOT been overrun (if you can attack, you can defend even easier), but the forced evictions and atrocities which caused massive suffering for Palestinians would not have happened. Instead, a hostile Zionist state cut Palestine into many pieces, taking most for itself.

It was not about survival, it was about conquest and unjustified acquisition.

[eyl]

107. "if you can attack, you can defend even easier"

No, actually, you can't. When attacking, you get to choose where to strike; if you're solely on the defensive, you need to be strong everywhere, because the enemy can concentrate against you.

but the forced evictions and atrocities which caused massive suffering for Palestinians would not have happened

I'm still waiting for an explenation of the forced evictions and massacres of Jews in that war.

[manic expression]

118. Not true

Israel didn't need to cross the borders. Furthermore, they didn't need to keep the land they conquered. If it was solely for tactical purposes, then they wouldn't have kept it, right?

Also, attacking exposes your forces. Defense gives you the advantage of chosen position. Your holdings are more open to counterattack. If if was really about "survival", then they could've easily held strong positions and stayed in the area they were supposed to inhabit. However, it was never about survival, it was about expansion and theft, so they tried to dominate the areas they weren't supposed to.

Well, I haven't gotten an explanation for the countless evictions and massacres of Arabs. IIRC, 75,000 were kicked off their land. This is justified? Oh, and that has continued to today, if you care.

If you would be so kind to give me a link or some info on those actions, then you would get a more precise and useful explanation.

[pelsar]

119. your military knowledge is not very good.....

i wouldnt know where to begin, but you seem to know absolutly nothing about military tactics. Defending multiple civilian vunerable positions requires a tremendous amount of manpower and equipment, and one is still vunerable. Attacking at select spots takes the pressure off those vunerable areas.

perhaps it would be best to learn about military tactics first?

as far as "returning the land taken"....that too would have been foolish since the "arabs" had not declared their willingness to live with israel and in fact later attacked again, but this time the defensive positions were improved (and of course if one attacks and loses, one should not complain about losing land, from where you attacked, theres a price to pay for trying to kill people who dont "get killed"

but like eyal..i too am waiting:
I'm still waiting for an explenation of the forced evictions and massacres of Jews in that war.

[eyl]

133. Your assumption would have been true

had peace broken out. It didn't (to say the least). (and in any case, it was tsategic reasons, not tactical - let's get the terminology right).

Your correct that a defender has the advantage of position. However, that's true of a given battle. It's not true overall.

As a rule of thumb, the attacker needs 3 times as much troops as the defender. Let's say I'm defending, and both sides have 300 troops. Say I need to defend 50 sites. That means I have to put 6 troops at each location. OTOH, the attacker can concentrate all his forces on one of those sites, giving him a 1:50 force advantage. I also suggest you look up the term "defeat in detail".

Here's a list of Jewish communities destroyed in 1948 (this is without communities destroyed earlier - such as Hebron - or massacres which didn't involve the destruction of a community, such as the hospital convoy).The format is Community name/geographical region/year established/Where it ended up at the end of the war*/notes

*In the case of communities listed as ending up in Israel, these were destroyed but later retaken

1) Atarot/Jerusalem/~1924/West Bank
2) Beit Ha'arava/Jordan Valley/1939/West Bank
3) Ein Tsurim/Etzion Block/1946/West Bank
4) Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem/ancient times/Jerusalem/West Bank
5) Kfar Darom/Southern coastal plane/1946/Gaza Strip/First established in 1936; destroyed in 1939
6) Kfar Etzion/Etzion Block/1943/West Bank/First established in 1934; destroyed in 1936; defenders massacred after surrender
7) Massuot Yitzchak/Etzion Block/1945/West Bank
8) Mishmar Hayarden/Galilee/1884/Israel (Israel-Syrian DMZ)/Originally named Shoshanat Hayarden
9) Neve Ya'akov/Jerusalem/1924/West Bank
10) Nitzanim/Southern coastal plane/1943/Israel
11) Revadim/Etzion Block/1947/West Bank
12) Yad Mordechai/Southern coastal plane/1943/Israel
13) Kalia/Dead Sea/?/West Bank

I've never seen an overall list of these events - this is from looking around quite a bit - so this list isn't necessarily comprehensive.

[pelsar]

33. so jews have no history...

did i get that right?...the jews werent kick out of palestine by the romans?....they have no right to return because they"ve been away too long?..is that how it works?

or perhaps zionism has nothing to do with the jewish culture?...which is it?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

41. The land was stolen from the Otttoman Turks

by the volonialist and imperialist (but nevertheless victorious) Brits and French at the close of WW 1 and divied up for what the imperialists perceived to be their short range imperialistic needs and goals.

See.

I'm not opining or fictionalizing - I linked everything.

[Colorado Blue]

48. Who in turn stole it from its previous landlords - imperialism

is nothing new.

The Mughals, the Mamluks, the Seljuks, the Caliphate, the Byzantines, the Romans - how many people have been conquered, expelled and driven forth from these lands?

Human history can't all be blamed on a country the size of Lake Erie.

[pelsar]

43. now were getting somewhere: but your confused....

Judaism HAS NO MANIFEST DESTINY. ...
Zionism does not represent Judaism. If you assert that much, you are insulting many Jews and Judaism itself.

perhaps a short lesson in a culture that is not yours and you seem to profess knowledge about:

zionism is a part of a judiasim, its a part of the culture, modern zionsim is not based on manifest destiny.....understand that and you have a chance in understanding jewish israelis who are a direct result of the two. Pretending to understand a culture not your own is hardly showing an open mind for other cultures.

[sabbat hunter]

65. care to explain

why no state of palestine was created in 1948? or in the years between 1948-1967? why did jordan and egypt occupy those lands that clearly didnt belong to them?

why did it take decades for jordan and egypt to recognize the existence of israel?

[manic expression]

75. Sure

They were occupying Arab land. Unless I'm mistaken, the goal was to both guard against more Israeli gains and to possibly take back Palestinian land.

Oh, they did not recognize Israel's diplomatic status. That's a common diplomatic method.

[eyl]

78. So, let me see

they were guarding it against further Israeli gains by....not giving it to the Palestinians?

[manic expression]

85. Yes

The Arab nations were not evicting Palestinians and stealing their land, unlike Israel.

[sabbat hunter]

81. so why

why wasnt a palestinian state declared in 1948 at the same time as israel?

why did Jordan and Egypt occupy the west bank and gaza for 20 years?

[manic expression]

86. Oh, gee, I dunno

maybe because Israel ended up stealing about 80% of what was supposed to be Palestine in 1948. The occupation happened because it was a response to what Israel did.

[sabbat hunter]

89. you have

you have got to be kidding me.

how about the fact that before the war king abdullah offered the would be provisional government of israel an alternative. instead of declaring independence that they become part of jordan (including what would be palestine) and get seats in his parlament.

do you think israel has a right to exist?

and if so with what boundaries?

pre 1967?

pre war of independence?

some other boundaries?

[manic expression]

95. I'm not

Looking at it today, Israel should and will exist. However, many things need to be met for there to be some justice. I believe that pre-1967 boundaries are a minimum. Right of return for wronged Palestinians is also very central. Actually I think the original UN partition should be honored. Also, reperations for destroyed houses would be ideal (all of this will never happen, but you asked me). Yes, I'm an idealist, but I'd rather be a hopeless idealist than an apologist for atrocity and theft.

The Jordanian offer was not near the equivalant of Israel's "offer" to Palestine. THAT was an offer they couldn't refuse. Israel has taken more and more land that doesn't belong to them, starting in 1948 and continuing to today. This includes countless innocents killed. That is wrong and unfair and unjust and worse.

Israel, clearly, has no right to that.

By the way, Jordan's offer would not have taken any Jewish land, while Israel has time and again taken Palestinian land.

[sabbat hunter]

97. jordan's offer

with jordans offer there would have been no israel and no palestine. Jordan would have taken over the entire area.

do you also think that the jews thrown out of arab countries should be given reperations?

[manic expression]

101. Jordan's offer

would not have stolen any land. That is quite important.

Yes, they should. They should also be allowed to go to those countries again. Excuse me for going on a tangent, but it was the creation of Israel and the subsequent atrocities that sparked the expulsion of Jews from many Muslim nations.

[eyl]

109. Not stolen any land?

They would have asserted sovereignity over the Jewish and Arab states plus the international zone. By the standards you yourself have espoused, how is that not stealing land?

Excuse me for going on a tangent, but it was the creation of Israel and the subsequent atrocities that sparked the expulsion of Jews from many Muslim nations.

Jews fled Syria after pogroms which happened in 1947 - months before the creation of Israel. There were anti-Jewish riots in Egypt beginning in 1945 (at the latest; I haven't searched further back to confirm it was the first or not). There was an anti-Jewish pogrom in Iraq in June 1941. There were pogroms in Yemen in 1947. There were a group of progroms in Libya throughout the 40s (some of these were under German occupation, but other - including one of the worst ones, in 1945 - occcured after the British drove them out).

[eyl]

96. And that prevented Jordan and Egypt

from giving Palestinians self rule on what they did control....why?

[manic expression]

102. No

it was a response to Israel's malicious actions. After 1948, when the Arab nations tried to fight off the Zionist expansion, it was either being possibly swallowed by Israel (and then spat out) or have an occupying force that wouldn't kick them off their land or murder them. Which choice was better?

The Arab nations did start giving Palestine self-rule, but it was a process that was always going to be gradual.

[eyl]

108. Are you listening to yourself?

And BTW, I'm fascinated to hear you describe the Jordanians as a "force which wouldn't murder" the Palestinians...

Please describe to me what steps Jordan took to give the Palestinians self-rule (given that Jordan annexed the West Bank).

[manic expression]

117. Are you?

They did take steps. That much is clear.

"In January 1964, Arab governments - wanting to create a Palestinian organisation that would remain essentially under their control - voted to create a body called the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

But the Palestinians wanted a genuinely independent body, and that was the goal of Yasser Arafat who took over the chairmanship of the PLO in 1969. His Fatah organisation (founded in secret five years earlier) was gaining notoriety with its armed operations against Israel."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1964.stm

Those are clearly steps. Again, it was always going to be gradual.

And if you try to argue that the Arab nations were anywhere nearly as disgusting and terrible as Israel, that is patently incorrect.

[pelsar]

120. too easy:

And if you try to argue that the Arab nations were anywhere nearly as disgusting and terrible as Israel, that is patently incorrect.

i believe you have earlier express your opinion that "arabs" were not invading the jews since it was their land, meaning all arabs were of one nation.
so, i shall list a few massacres of "arab upon arab", which far surpass anything israel has done:

sept 1970:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September_in_Jordan

the number of casualties in what resembled a civil war is estimated at tens of thousands, and both sides were involved in intentional killing of civilians

Jordanian soldiers who were on weekend leave were continuously attacked by Palestinians. Many were ritualistically murdered by hammering nine-inch nails in their heads.

Acts of violence against civilians and kidnappings frequently took place. Chief of the Jordanian royal court (and subsequently a Prime Minister) Zaid al-Rifai claimed that "the fedayeen killed a soldier, beheaded him, and played soccer with his head in the area where he used to live.

__________________
and syria:
http://www.2la.org/lebanon/ee/terrorsy.htm
hama (their own city) 1982: about 40,000 dead
They quickly converged onto the town killing anything that would move. Groups of soldiers would round up men, women, and children only to shoot them in the back of the head.

....the Syrian army brought in poison gas generators. Cyanide gas filled the air of Hama.
________________
I could list the dead from the lebanese civil war, arab killing palestinains....heres just one

http://www.1stbusinesslebanon.com/civilwar/civil.html
January 18, 1976 Saturday Karantina massacre
Christian forces conquered Karantina, a slum district populated primarily by poor Kurds and Armenians but controlled by a PLO detachment. More than 1000 civilians were massacred.

_____________________________
i guess given the "local culture" and the israeli experience of the jews of hebron, losing in the 48 (or 67) war, would have probably meant being massacred, finishing off "the survivors of hitlers death camps".....

[eyl]

131. Read what you just posted

In January 1964, Arab governments - wanting to create a Palestinian organisation that would remain essentially under their control - voted to create a body called the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

[Tom Joad]

24. Try explaining 700,000 civilians forcibly evicted from their homeland.

[Jim Sagle]

27. Nothing to explain - it didn't happen that way.

[manic expression]

30. No, it's something to explain

because it did happen, and that is ethnic cleansing.

Or do you just feel it is unnecessary to explain such disgusting things that happened to those people?

[Jim Sagle]

36. The Arab armies told them to leave so they could kill off the Jews without

civilians in the way.

So they left, mostly voluntarily, and with the worst of all possible motives.

But they're the victims.

Yeah.

Right.

[manic expression]

40. Baseless

and equally base.

You really are lost, aren't you?

"Arab discontent again exploded into widespread civil disobedience during a general strike in 1936. By this time, the militant Zionist group Irgun Zvai Leumi was orchestrating attacks on Palestinian and British targets with the aim of "liberating" Palestine and Transjordan (modern-day Jordan) by force."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1929_36.stm

And then....

"The year had begun with Jewish and Arab armies each staging attacks on territory held by the other side. 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. 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."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm

Try again.

[pelsar]

42. forget something?....

perhaps the goal of the invading arab armies of 1948 and the ensuing war had something to do with it? Perhaps the invading arab armies shouldnt have invaded as their goal was.......? (you seem to be avoiding this issue....,not "what they were fighting but their goal)

[manic expression]

53. No, I didn't

The Arabs were fighting the Zionists, who were stealing their land. The Zionists had already begun to attack far before that point, and 1948 saw a culmination of this, as the Zionists invaded and stole land, killing as they went.

Again, you cannot "invade" your own land. Get that through your head.

[pelsar]

57. you cannot invade your own land?

so which land belonged to the syrians, egyptians and jordanians?....it all belonged to them?...but didnt the jordanians kinda keep the land they took?...egyptians too...seems they forgot about the palestenains

[manic expression]

59. No, you can't

Just to clarify, this is about 1948. If you are talking about other conflicts, specify as much.

The Zionists stole Arab land. The Arabs fought against this. That is not an invasion, it is the opposite.

[pelsar]

63. which arabs?

fought against the "evil zionists" in 1948?...are you refering to the syrians? Egyptian? Iraqis? Jordanians?... those guys who had obviously (since they did it) had plans to take the land from the jews and keep it for themselves?...

"those arabs"...

[manic expression]

73. The Arabs

First, the Arab factions were fighting the Zionists. Later, Arab nations took action against Israel as well. They had plans of making sure land wasn't stolen.

[pelsar]

113. so the jordanians stole it instead....

They had plans of making sure land wasn't stolen.

oh..thats why jordan annexed it....and egypt kept an iron grip on gaza from 48 to 67.......and kept the palestenains living in squalar. I cant recall reading about the jordanian or egyptian plans to "give back those lands to the palestenians...perhaps a link is in order? or a book?

[Jim Sagle]

62. The Zionists were stealing NOTHING! Revisionist lies convince no one.

[manic expression]

71. Yes, the Zionists were stealing quite a bit

history proves you wrong, yet 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. 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."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm

And that's not even the start....

[Jim Sagle]

105. Lying BBC revisionist rubbish. Feh.

[Behind the Aegis]

130. What a load!

"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."

Yeah, they "conquered substantial territories allocated for the Palestinian one." Oh wait...the Arabs refused to accept those "substantial territories allocated for the Palestinian one." Oh wait, yet again...they had to "seize" areas already alloted to the Jewish state!

And, let's not even start on the massacre lessons....

[The Magistrate]

50. Actually, Not Baseless, Sir

Though not the entirity of the story either. There were distinct phases to the departures. The Arab League did in fact call for Arabs resident in the Jewish Zone after partition to depart in the period before the Mandate officially ceased, at which time serious fighting had already commenced between the militias of the two peoples. This call was largely heeded, and involved a predominantly urban populace that accounted for between a quarter and a third of the total who departed their homes. Zionist leadership did not want these people to leave, and made every effort to persuade them to stay. The second phase involved operations in the western approaches to Jerusalem, in which most of the fighting involved villages, these being typically situated on hilltops and comprising stone structures, which made them essentially fortifications held by Arab militias to dominate the roads through the valleys. People fled their homes as sensible folk will when war comes to their doorstep. Irgun units did commit atrocities against civilians in this phase, and report and rumor of these certainly hurried the flight of many. The final phase was operations in the closing stages of the war, many conducted in areas allotted to the Arab Zone by the Partition. In these people were certainly expelled by deliberate policy of the Israeli forces, and particularly in the Galillee, which was a guerrilla stronghold in which many atrocities had been committed against Jewish residents by the guerrillas, it was a brutal process.

The snippet you have provided from the mid-thirties is a highly selective one. That was a period of wide-spread hostilities directed by Arab Nationalists against the English and the Jews, generally refered to as the Arab Revolt, which had peaked in 1935, but by no means ceased. It was a very bloody episode. During it, because the English could not trust Moslem policemen to be loyal, the English authorities recruited policemen and soldiers from the Jewish populace, and most were Hagganah members. The Irgun was at the time the merest splinter organization, with no more than a few hundred adherents, and its activities could have been subtracted from the events of that decade without any signifigant alteration to the casualty figures.

[manic expression]

54. Generally,

Do you disagree? You clearly point out the same things I have, such as the atrocities and the theft of land. IMO, that simply breaks the events into specifics, but does not really diverge from my conclusions. What would you say?

I must comment on the "final phase", in that Jewish Zionists were in the Arab Zone. That is interesting, to say the least, no?

What I was pointing out with my mid-thirties "snippet" was that the Zionists were conducting aggressive actions in the area prior to 1948. This contradicts the poster's view.

[pelsar]

56. jews cant buy land?....

i guess thats the "agressive actions against the arabs in palestine..hmm, if an arab from jordan bought land in palestine..was that ok?

[manic expression]

58. I'm pretty sure they can

However, this doesn't constitute "buying", now does it?

"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. 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."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1948.stm

[eyl]

68. But the siege and destruction of Gush Etzion

(and other Jewish communities) which started before the beginning of 1948 - was not land theft (or an "invasion")...because?

[manic expression]

72. And where, exactly, was Gush Etzion? n/t

[eyl]

76. Not far from Jerusalem

in the territory designated as an international zone.

And what does it matter? Your entire argument is that the Arab states were justified in intervening to stop Israeli attacks on Palestinians. If the Gush Etzion communities had been in the territory designated for the Palestinian state, wouldn't the Jewish forces be justified in attacking to prevent its destruction?

[manic expression]

90. No

"Kfar Etzion was a religious kibbutz founded in 1943, about 2 km east of the road between Jerusalem and Hebron. By the end of 1947, there were 163 adults and 50 children living there. Together with three nearby kibbutzim established 1945-1947, it formed Gush Etzion (the Etzion Bloc).

The United Nations partition plan for Palestine of November 29, 1947 placed the Etzion Bloc in the interior of the intended Arab state."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Etzion_massacre

It matters because the Zionists refused to evacuate the settlements. Why was this? Because they didn't intend to be satisfied with some land; they wanted to have more, at the expense of the Palestinians, of course.

"The Zionist leadership rejected any suggestion of abandoning the settlement entirely, both because of the overall policy to hold onto all Jewish settlements whatever the cost, and because the Etzion Bloc, reinforced by Haganah fighters, played a useful role in obstructing Arab traffic along the road from Hebron to Jerusalem."
(from same link as above)

It must be recognized that the fact that they were on Palestinian land (even by the unfair UN partition), and that the Zionists were trying to steal Palestinian land through this. IMO, one should look at the Zionist policy that kept them there.

For some perspective, the Israeli area designated by the UN was a crime in itself, as it gave more than 50% of the land to a group that compromised about 30% of the population. After that, the Zionists began to take more Palestinian land by force, which went on until 1948. In all, Israel gained about 80% of Palestine.

[eyl]

94. As near as I can make out

from this map, Gush Etzion was in the international zone (it's a bit southwest of Bethleham); if not, it was right on the border. But even if it was part of the Palestinian state, so what? The border designated sovereignity; they didn't mean that Jews couldn't own land in the Arab state (or vice versa). Otherwise, by your logic, Israel had the right to kick out every single Arab living within Israel's parition borders.

[The Magistrate]

106. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir

How far from Jerusalem do you think Hebron is? "A couple of miles" exagerates the closeness, somewhat, but it is not a very long road between the two places.

What interests me in this is the dogged refusal to acknowledge Arab Nationalist excesses displayed in your comments. Arabs driven from the Jewish Zone is an Israeli crime; Jews driven from the Arab Zone is an Israeli crime.

It has always seemed to me better to acknowledge the facts of the situation: this is a war of peoples that had lasted more than a quarter century by the Partition, and has continued more than eighty years into the present day in various forms. No one involved has particularly clean hands, nor would it be a reasonable expectation they would in such a struggle. The attempt to portray it as a black and white struggle between demons and angels is doomed to failure, and cannot be pressed without violence to the facts.

[eyl]

110. I think that stands

as a nice summary to the matter

welcome back, BTW; havn't seen you down here in a while:hi:

[gonzo8]

116. Words more true were never spoken....

"The attempt to portray it as a black and white struggle between demons and angels is doomed to failure, and cannot be pressed without violence to the facts."

The issue here is not who committed crimes. Everybody involved, Palestinians, Egyptians, Syrians, Israelis, Americans, Russians, Iranians, British, French, everybody, has done very nasty things to advance their agenda over the years.

The more important issue is how to move forward to settle the current disputes, not in a way that achieves some sort of perfect moral resolution, but a settlement that the parties currently living in the area can live with given the facts as they are today.

In doing this, nobody can ignore the "excesses" of either side, and frankly, while I am sure all will howl with outrage at the "moral equivalence" of it all, I do not understand why a Palestinian should feel any less outraged when his family is blown to pieces by a Hellfire missile fired from an Apache helicopter into a crowded slum than an Israeli should feel when his family is killed by a suicide bomber in downtown Jerusalem.

For that matter, I do not understand why we Americans expect endless sympathy for several thousand dead in 9/11, but have no sympathy for the vastly more numerous civilian casulties that we have inflicted on Iraq.

[The Magistrate]

137. Well Said, Mr. Gonzo

History interests me, and that of this region is a peculiarly involved and instructive tangle. It has some relevance simply because it seems no one forgets anything in those parts, but like all long-lived fueds, the origins have ceased to have practical meaning. It is useful, indeed necessary, though, to provide correctives when partisans of one side or the other engage in distorting the historical record.

While there may be differences between the acts you mention, you are quite right that they are not the sort of differences that can be expected to mean a damned thing to the near and dear of the dead and maimed that result.

One key to a liveable solution seems to me for both sides to give up entirely grand dreams. The Israelis must abandon the mirage of "Greater Istael" just as the Arab Palestinians must abandon the mirage of reversing the Partition and the military decisions of 1948. They do not have to like each other, but both have to leave the other be....

[pelsar]

138. the historical aspect has been perverted....

i remember listening to a settler from hebron talk about how "this guy was killed, this person was tortured, etc" i was thinking, when did all this happen, i dont recall reading about it, then it hit, me, he was talking about what had happened in 1929, yet his narrative was as if it was yesterday.....and thats the crux of the problem. Events long ago, are "kept alive" as if they were yesterday, when in fact the events, the people involved the environement no longer exists.....the historical perspective has been completely perverted.

[The Magistrate]

139. An Interesting Point, Mr. Pelsar

The "eternal now" is all very well for mystics and lovers; it is not so good for politics, and especially poor for ending conflicts. Forgetfullness, of course, can also be achieved too completely, but a degree of it is essential: as one of my favorite tag lines puts it, "I never forgive; I often forget."

[pelsar]

114. i get it....

kfar Etzion was in danger of being attacked, so therefore they should have been evacuated..and since they werent, the zionists were at fault for their subsequent massacre at the hands of the arabs.

hmm, can we use this logic on the various arab villages that "werent evacuated" in time and blame the arab leadership for their failure to evacuate them?

we do want to be consistent, use the same standard.....dont we?

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabbat hunter]

142. do you think

if israel had lost the war of independence in 1948 and the arab nations won, do you think that a palestine would exist today or would jordan, syria, egypt have divided up the land amongst themselves?

[Jim Sagle]

25. The peace process was knifed in the gut by Arafat, and everybody

goddamn well knows it.

[Colorado Blue]

47. More recent history, speaking of the broken peace process:

The Oslo Accords forced Israel into the same situation as the UN Partition. The same mistake was made in assuming that the Palestinians would abide by the agreement. There was no provision for Israel's security in the event of attacks from the terrorist groups. The same narrow 14 Km section made Israel vulnerable, as well as the long unguarded border with the Palestinian areas. Israel was forced to reoccupy due to the attacks in 2002 resulting in 150 deaths in one month.

Somehow, none of the violence is ever taken into consideration when condemning Israel.

One gets the impression, actually, that violence is acceptable. The fact that the 2,000,000 people killed in the Sudan are rarely even acknowledged by the same people who are busy condemning Israel for trying to survive, reinforces this impression.

It's lamentable, as is the biased revisionism that passes for history in some of the above posts.

Worse, is the sense that instead of desiring reconciliation, instead of thinking of ways to improve communication between people and heal the wounds of the past 100 years, some people - most sitting at a safe distance from any possibility of harm to themselves - actually seem to be encouraging the continuation of conflict, encouraging more terrorism, more war.

That's infinitely depressing and sad, especially since it's coming from people who should be supporting nonviolent, peaceful resolution to the world's many problems.

[40ozDonkey]

93. wow...

The belief that violence against civilians in exchange for land is incredibly disgusting and inhuman. I came here as a supporter of Palestinians against Israel's "security" policies, but watching someone trying to justify attacks on Israel's civilians as an "excuse" for stealing land just sickened me.

I'm aware that Israel kills civilians as well, but I'm also aware that Ghandi is my favorite statesman. He taught us to be better than those oppressing us. After reading this debate and doing some Googling on my own, I cannot square my values with the militants, so I retract support for militant Palestinians as of today.

Colorado Blue is right. If one group of people in this world need help today, it's the Darfur Sudanese. I'm ashamed I haven't paid more attention before.

[mike_c]

122. read the history of the Haganah, Irgun, and LEHI...

...during the 1930s and 1940s, culminating in the attacks against Arab Palestinian villages during 1948. It is remarkably like the present situation in Darfur, with the resident population forced off their land into great refugee camps, or killed, by a land hungry ethnic minority.

[pelsar]

123. and what were the arabs doing?

kfar etzion (or hebron) being the example of what to expect.....remarkably like the plans of some countries in europe in the previous decade

[mike_c]

124. they were defending their land from a foreign movement bent...

...on forcibly expelling them through terrorism and murder. That IS how Israel was established, whether you wish to face it or not. Just like the genocide in Darfur.

[pelsar]

125. i know how israel was established...

and i (unlike others perhaps) understand that if the jews hadnt succeed they would have been massacred and slaughtered like those of hebron and kfar etzion, and of germany before, and poland and russia ad nauseum.....which was in fact expected

so as i understand your now comparing israels establisment to the genocide in Darfur correct?...

_____________________________

and the jews were foreigners?...returning to ones cultural and historical home doesnt count?....or how many years away and you lose your "connection" or perhaps they really werent jews?

[mike_c]

127. my "cultural and historic home" is England....

Do you honestly believe that I have the right to go back there and kick people off their land and out of their homes-- by murder and terror-- just because my ancestors lived there a few centuries ago, and my distant relatives still do? How many years? I don't know, but Arab Palestinians were forcibly removed from land they had owned for 2000 years. It's only been a bit more than 300 years since my progenitors left England, and under rather tumultuous circumstances if the stories I'm told are correct. Surely my claim to some chunk of the English countryside is pretty good if your logic has merit. Bummer about the current residents-- if I don't kill them maybe they can find a wretched camp in some disputed corner of Ireland or something. Best yet, Israel's precedent allows me to utterly ignore calls for justice under international law!

on edit-- your comments about Zionism are disingenuous, as usual. Up until the 1930s Palestine had Muslim, Jewish, and Christian citizens. Jews were not under any direct threat there until the Zionist movement itself began a campaign of violence. They owned their own land, so they had no need for the land belonging to others EXCEPT to disenfranchise their neighbors. At the time of the partition Jews represented just under 30 percent of the population-- most were recent Zionist immigrants-- but through a terrorist campaign were able to command a 55 percent partition. Even that was not enough-- the terror organizations had contingency plans for seizing the remainder of the country, which they did when the Arabs resisted the forced transfer of villages from the Israeli zones-- transfer that was meant to circumvent the issue of Arab citizenship in the Israeli partition. Apartheid, in short.

[pelsar]

129. oops...

so what happend in 1929?

Hebron lived in peace with their tens of thousands of Arab neighbors. But on the night of August 23, 1929, the tension simmering within this cauldron of nationalities bubbled over, and for 3 days, Hebron turned into a city of terror and murder. By the time the massacres ended, 67 Jews lay dead and the survivors were relocated to Jerusalem, leaving Hebron barren of Jews for the first time in hundreds of years.

_____________________________________

so as far as i understand, from your point of view jews have no right to return to israel....and should be content living a world of antisemetism that seems to creep up every so often at different parts of the globe....good solution, except after 2,000 years of being shit upon, it was enough....

the palestenians had two choices when the jews returned...accept them, or fight them, they fought and lost...the jews previous to that in europe and in various arab countries didnt fight...and lost.

at that point they still had choices....the jews accepted their refugees and made the best, the palesteniand and their arab brethen decided NOT to make the best of things, and tried again...and lost again....and again... and again.

bad choices....and now it seems they've made clear of what they want: to remove all the jews.. as they tried in 48.....

[Matilda]

141. Thank you. That has long been one of my arguments.

Can you imagine if all of us colonials - Australian, Canadian, New
Zealanders, South Africans, Zimbabweans - all laid claim to a portion
of Britain on the grounds that this is the country of our racial
heritage, and that we have sentimental ties there - in this case, far
more recent than those of the Jewish people in the majority of cases.
We'd be laughed out of court, and rightly so.

I do fully understand their reasons, after centuries of being
ostracised and subject to pogroms, but taking over another country is
not the answer. Buying land as individuals, fine, no problems there.
But not pushing out the original inhabitants and creating a state that
would be alien to them.

It's as bad as what our forefathers did to the Australian Aboriginals,
and I feel that was totally wrong too.

[pelsar]

143. but its a false argument....

if one of the colonial groups were hounded all over the world, then they too eventually would look to britan for their salvation, having no where else to turn..but they're not. The colonial groups killed the stole their way, made new countries and now "feel bad about it, but not "bad enough" to return the land....

as far as the jews "buying land" and not pushing out the original inhabitants, it obviously was not so black and white. Nor do i blame the arabs for their "dislike" of the europeans (though this is not true of all)...unfortunatly life isnt fair, nor is it just.

the arab inhabitants may have been "wronged" but then so too were the jews, for 2,000 years. Is there a "moral scale" to judge who was "wronged more?

one can ask, why should the jews who were kicked out first by the romans and had THEIR land stolen first not have any rights to return to it?..because they "trusted other countries to treat them justly, and whom did not treat them fairly..so now they should be continued to be treated like subhumans?

is that just?

[Matilda]

145. Of course it isn't just.

What happened through the centuries, and most particularly during the Third Reich, cannot be
justified in any way.

But why are the Arabs - Christian and Muslim - being made to pay the price for it? That is what
makes it so wrong.

As my mum used to say: "two wrongs don't make a right."

[pelsar]

146. because they're sitting on stolen land.....

the "stolen land" arguement goes two ways....if one wants to claim that "the jews/israelis" stole the land...well then we can easlily look back a bit further in time and see that, it was the arabs and christians who came AFTER the jews, hence they're sitting on stolen land....

however, to be more realistic: because in the real world of limited options, there are not always two good options, just options.

the jews ran out of options.....it was that simple, no where else to run, to hide.....to continue to be persecuted was now out of the question, as it was now clear in this "modern age" that it was no longer a matter of individuals but world wide systematic genocide....

seems to me, giving the jews tiny sliver of their historical homeland, where they were now going was the least "evil" of the two options. Perhaps in this world of realistic limited options you have a better one?

[Matilda]

147. A tiny sliver? That's the point - it's getting bigger and bigger.

And I'm sorry, I still can't agree that ancient - really, really ancient - ties to a place gives
anybody the right to walk in and appropriate the land from current owners.

And you speak as if the Arabs moved in after the Jews were driven out by the Romans, but in fact
the people who populated the land at the time of the expulsion of the Jews were the same
people who had been there for centuries, and remained for centuries to come - a whole mix of
people generally known then as Canaanites. So if the Jews of today have ancient rights to the
land, so do the Arabs - all descended from those ancient tribes from biblical times.

[pelsar]

148. the other option?

yes, those people were sitting on stolen land for centuries, they moved in on the "empty lots" after the jews left...the same amount of time the jews were spent being tossed out of country after country...while they lived in peace on jewish land...was that fair?

those ancient ties, the definition of the jew, was the same reason the jews were persecuted, killed, murdered etc all of those years. Seems to me if the "jew" is accepted as an identity (via antisemitism) then so to does the religion and customs that define the jew, and that included the homeland.

or do those who arent even jewish get to choose which customs and religious parts of judiaism are relevant to the jews? (may i pick which parts of islam are relevant?-goes both ways)

btw, you negleted the "other option"...you were going to say?


and just for the record: your last sentence i agree with:
So if the Jews of today have ancient rights to the
land, so do the Arabs - all descended from those ancient tribes from biblical times...neither has the "greater right" hence it must be split.
(and that tiny sliver that gets bigger?.....probably worthwhile to stop trying to kill jews these days, its a losing propostion....)

[Matilda]

149. But - but - "those people" weren't sitting on stolen land.

They didn't "move in" after the Jews left - they were there anyway. Not all the inhabitants of
Israel were expelled in one go leaving an empty country. There were many different races there,
and many people stayed, including, of course, some of the Jews who managed not to get thrown out.
And they just went on living there, and multiplying, and often being over-run by one race or
another, and mixing their blood with that of others who were there - Christian, Muslim, and Jew
all living on the same land for centuries.



I'm sorry - but I'm not sure what you mean about "the other option" - I re-read my post, and I
don't think I mentioned two options, but if you explain, I'll try to pick it up again.

[pelsar]

150. the option...

that was not mentioned: what should the jews have done after WWII or even before, just go on and keep being killed and persecuated for being jewish?

wasnt 2,000 years enough?


as far as the ancient land...as far as i understand it wasnt all inhabitaed, there were quite a few tracts that nobody claimed, in fact the "state" (turkish/british) had quite a large percentage that no one claimed, perhaps those lands belonged to the ancient israelis-held in trust so to speak?- so what was wrong with the jews going back to such lands?

[Matilda]

153. For me personally, for what it's worth, I can't see any problem

at all with Jews making their homes in Palestine after WWII, and I can
well understand why many of them didn't want to return to Europe.

But the problem, and it relates to your last paragraph, lay in declaring
a Jewish State and forcing Arabs off the land they had worked for
centuries.

That's the root of the problem as far as the Palestinians are concerned.
Nothing is going to change that now, and I do think they have to accept
it, but there should be compensation made to Palestinians who lost
their homes and lands during 1947-49. After all, Jews are now being
paid compensation for land and houses appropriated by the Soviets in
Europe, so why shouldn't the same apply to the Palestinians?

[eyl]

151. Actually, AFAIK

the population of the region was effectively changed several times, as waves of immigrants came over from Europe and neighboring Arab lands. I suppose it's not impossible that they have an element of Canaanite ancestry, but it's undeterined at this point, since no Canaanite "subelement" of identity remains, unlike the Jews, who retained a distinctive (and thus tracable) identity. I only started hearing about claims to Canaanite ancestry following Oslo, which leads me to believe the entire thing is politically motivated.

[Matilda]

154. Well, yes, that's really what I said,

when I talked about the country being over-run at various times and
the blood being mixed.

But because the descent isn't "pure", that doesn't mean that people
living in the Holy Land in the 20th century weren't descended from
residents who'd been there for centuries in many cases, and sometimes
probably more than a thousand years.

We all of us now live in largely multi-cultural societies, but because
many races are now inter-marrying with newer arrivals, does that mean
we don't have a right to call ourselves Australian, American, Canadian
or British by both birth and heritage? Of course it doesn't. It just
means we make some additions to our ancestral trees.

If we're going to start populating countries and pushing out long-time
residents because their bloodlines aren't pure, just how far are we
from Nazi idealogy? I'd have thought the Jews should be the last
people to want to uphold ideas like that.

[eyl]

152. That's a drastic oversimplification

Until the 1948 war, the Yishuv took territory exclusively by buying it. It didn't start taking control of other territory until the war - which was triggered by Arab rejection of the partition - began. At that point, it was unavoidable - see my replies to ME above.

[Matilda]

155. The policy, from at least 1919-1920, was to establish a Jewish Homeland.

That meant taking over, one way or another.

Until 1947, the land was bought, but it was only around 6%. And it
was only after years of terrorist-style attacks by the Jews against
the British that moves to establish a Jewish State were reluctantly
introduced. In other words, the Jews, via the Irgun and Stern gangs,
did to the British what the Palestinians are now doing to them.

And yes, once granted Statehood, the big land grab by the Jews started,
and that is where all the real trouble began, as the Arab peoples were
forced off their land by murder and terrorist attacks. Because, funny,
they didn't like being forced out of their homes and off their farms.


Edit: sp.

[pelsar]

156. forced out?

thats an over simplicification...what actually happened in many areas (exceptions noted) was that if the arabs attacked, the jews then reattacked in some cases (dont know how many) wiped out the village, This was very similar to what the allied forces did in WWII as they entered germany. A village that they were shot at, was leveled, those that didnt were not.

other arab villages, talked to the local hagana commander, told them that they would not be attacking and were then left alone.

Had the arabs not attacked israel, with the obvious intention of finishing off what hitler tried, there would have been virtually no being forced off ones land....theres are consequences for ones actions.....maybe they shouldnt have tried to massacre the jews?...just a thought.

the real question is: what if the surrounding arab states stayed out of it?...after all they're invading was not for the benefits of the palestenians.....perhaps the actual blame lies with their attempt at the land grab?

[Matilda]

158. Forced out.

The Arabs were defending their own land, not rushing out to attack the Jews. In many areas, the
Arabs had formed peace agreements with the Jews, but that didn't necessarily stop their villages
from being attacked if the Jews wanted that patch of land. Such as Deir Yassin, which was a peaceful
city. And of course there were many places where the Arab population, seeing destruction of a city,
fled from their own to escape death but intending to return when the fighting was over, only to
find that the Jews had appropriated their land while they were gone, claiming conveniently that
the Arab population had chosen to leave voluntarily. It was neither a permanent vacation of their
property nor voluntary in the real meaning of the word, as the Jews well knew.

It's very wrong to equate the Arabs' defence of their homes with the objectives of Hitler and the
Nazis. Hitler was indeed committing genocide; the Arabs were fighting for their homeland. Just
as the Israelis say they are today, but somehow the Arabs were terrorists while the Israelis are
merely defenders of the land.

[eyl]

159. "not rushing out to attack the Jews"

Tell that to the residents of Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter. Or Kfar Etzion. Or Yad Mordechai. Or Kalya. Or...

[eyl]

134. Read why

all three were established.