End The Occupation: End The Arab Occupation Of The Land Of Israel II

[Gilgamesh]

That is a good point. Maybe the key issues here is transfering people in such a way that they agree with the transfer, or they think that they agree with it or they are being transfered without knowing it. Maybe the fault of Zionists here is that they are too honest and let others know what what they want without providing any compensations that those transfered can accept. The problem is, that no orgnize transfare is in existance. This is the problem. There is no single Arab state willing to accept or absorb these Arabs, giving them equall right and freedom to purchase lands. All, in an attempt to mobilize these people as weapons, against Israel.

There is no transfare, there should have been one (at least a plan) but there is none. There are only Arabs escaping Arafat reign of terror.


The problem with the current method of transfer is that the people who are being transfered disagree with the justifications, compensations and other factors regarding this transfer and thus they protest against it using any form of protest available. There is no transfare at all.
Reading your posts, one must assume you think the entire WB as a build up areas, with warfare on every square intch. Infact, Judea and Samaria are underpopulated. empty! barren! There is no reason for the war on the first place.


Nevertheless, it will always be difficult to get the locals to accept a government that has only limited control. The "limited control" of the PA goverment is made to cover all of the daily needs of 99% of the Arab population in the WB and Gaza.


Thus, the current method of transfer is slowly working, but not without many difficulties. There is no transfare, only Arabs escaping Arafats reign of terror, the chaos on the streets and the grife caused by the Arab millitias.


It would certainly help Zionist much more if they showed Palestinians more respect, Respect has to be earned. No one is born with. Mass murderers, terrorists and their supporters get no respect from me.


accepted their identity and did not discuss transfer theories in public, while using the excuse of "terrorism", settlement growth, walls and land purchases to slowly push the people away in a friendly way. Israel is a democracy. People will talk what they feel like talking, whoever odd bizzare or stupid it may sound to some.

No key politician of ours, ever talked about transfare as a political policy.


In any case, I'm happy with the land that I have and if I need more land, I'll buy it in a friendly way without creating hostilities. True! This is the history of the settelements in a nut shell.

[Jehan]

AJL



Well, we got mixed up in the definitions. When we say "Palestinian," we usually mean an Arab person living in the "disputed territories." When we talk about Israeli Arabs, we talk about Arabs with Israeli citizenship. These definitions are commonly used in the international press and community, as well as in the UN when the issue the Arab-Israeli conflict are being discussed. They are not meant to be offensive, and they make it clear which group of people is being discussed.

I understand what you mean by 'Israeli Arabs'. I just do not choose to call them that, as you chose to refer to "Palestinians".

Terms may seem relatively unimportant, but usually they do carry connotations. Apart from the fact that the uninitiated see 'Israeli Arab' as an oxymoron, the Palestinians living in Israel do not like to be referred to as "Israeli Arabs" or "Arab Israelis" or "48 Arabs". They see the term "48 Arabs" especially as very insulting to them because they were Arabs long before 1948. According to a poll by the Tel Aviv Dyan Center, most of them call themselves either "Palestinian Arabs living in Israel" or "Palestinians in Israel". You and the international community can call them what you want, of course... but since that is the way they identify themselves, that is what I call them.


Well, the fact is, JNF is an private organization, and the work they do is not funded by the Israeli government. It is an important legal distinction because by law the Israeli government is not allowed to discriminate against it's citizens on the basis of ethnic origin. If JNF was a government organization, the court wouldn't have ruled in its favor.

AJL, I do understand that the Jewish National Fund calls itself a private organization, and I do not think I have claimed that the "work" they do is directly funded by the Israeli government.

However, the fact remains that this private organization calls the land it owns, through purchase or confiscation, 'national land' which must be secured against Arabs, because it is the property of the Jews of the world, Israel's national constituency. This is clearly discriminatory, as you yourself pointed out, the Jewish National Fund:


discriminate[s].. on the basis of ethnic origin

Yet... this policy of redeeming the land for the Jewish people ( which is the JNF's "work") is consistent, or at least difficult to distinguish, from the Zionist point of view of the land as the sole property of the Jewish people, the true nationals of Israel, the rationale being that it is in the interest of Israel to increase the land owned by the Jews, not, understandably enough, the Arabs. And as far as I understand, although you seem to see the JNF as discriminating on the basis of ethnic origin, you would not say the same of Zionism?

Would you then agree that the government supports, theoretically at least, the Jewish National Fund's work?

I do not know if you read the article I posted fully...but I think it explains things quite coherently...



The problem was: how can a country, eager for world recognition as non-discriminatory and democratic, structure its institutions to deprive permanently its citizens who are not Jews of use of much of its land?

The answer was:


The Zionist movement created a network of "national" institutions to carry out policies-such as land redemption for Jews-which are clearly discriminatory. By publicizing these institutions as purely philanthropic agencies, the popular perception that Israel is a genuine democracy has remained largely undamaged.

Therefore, I do understand that the Jewish National Fund is in fact private. And why...

As for funding...

Ninety-three percent of Israel's land is "national" land, which is developed, leased and administered by "national" institutions for Israel's "national " constituency, "the Jewish people."

Accomplishing this much does require funding, right?

Well...apart from the fact that the United States grants tax-deductible status to many of Israel's "national" institutions...as if they are as qualified for income tax deduction as any contribution to any private, voluntary, American philanthropic agency in the US.

I do not know if the government, or members of it, are prohibited from aiding a private, philanthropic agency?


Again, I think the fact that same words can mean different things to us created a misunderstanding here. Israel does not discriminate against it's non-Jewish citizens, except on the issues of security. The key issues here are citizenship and security.

A lot of things can fall under the issue of security...both in Israel and outside, especially in the last couple of years. Is land part of this, though? You could say that having Arabs (even if they are Israeli citizens/nationals) owning a lot of land threatens Israel's security I suppose...


While the Jewish identity of the state is important, Jews are not priveledged.

You seem to have contradicted yourself somewhat...

Earlier, I believe you said:


An important thing to understand, is that Israel is a nation-state, a state conceived for ethnic Jews. Thereby, the Jews and Jewish concerns have overriding priority over other groups. While all the citizens have equal rights, not all citizens have equal priveledges.

Perhaps I did not understand, but to me that does not exactly translate to, nor is it synonymous with "Jews are not privileged".

What I see is that “maintaining the Jewish identity of the state” automatically means that Jews are privileged. I can understand that of course, since the whole idea of Israel as a state "conceived for ethnic Jews, where Jews and Jewish concerns have overriding priority over other groups" is more or less constantly under threat....

But this goes back to my earlier point. Whatever the rationale, Zionism clearly does "discriminate.. on the basis of ethnic origin". Therefore I see it as racist.

[MGB8]

Ireland is an Irish State - it limits immigration and protects its heritage. Italy an Italian state, and does likewise. Ditto France. Ditto India. Ditto Japan. Ditto Germany. Ditto Russia. Etc. etc.

The Arabs nations - not only do they limit immigration, but in many (ie. Saudi Arabia) there is no freedom or religion whatsoever, and in other dhimmi-tude.

So, please, if Israel, national home to the Israelites, is racist, the ENTIRE WORLD is friggin racist.

And, what is REALLY discriminatory, what is REALLY racist, is applying one standard to one group (Jews) and a different, easier standard to everyone else.

So, Jahen, you see, YOU are the Racist. Zionism is just a nationalist movement.

[KettleWhistle]

I understand what you mean by 'Israeli Arabs'. I just do not choose to call them that, as you chose to refer to "Palestinians".

Terms may seem relatively unimportant, but usually they do carry connotations. Apart from the fact that the uninitiated see 'Israeli Arab' as an oxymoron, the Palestinians living in Israel do not like to be referred to as "Israeli Arabs" or "Arab Israelis" or "48 Arabs". They see the term "48 Arabs" especially as very insulting to them because they were Arabs long before 1948. According to a poll by the Tel Aviv Dyan Center, most of them call themselves either "Palestinian Arabs living in Israel" or "Palestinians in Israel". You and the international community can call them what you want, of course... but since that is the way they identify themselves, that is what I call them. Jehan,

I think terminology is very important because people often use same words to describe different things, and we do that, we will talk past each other, and will misunderstand each other needlessly.

I never heard anyone say "48 Arabs," but I don't see why term "Israeli Arabs" would be an oxymoron. An Israeli is a person with Israeli citizenship. Not all Jews are Israelis and not all Israelis are Jews. This is not a term that is meant to be in anyway offensive.




AJL, I do understand that the Jewish National Fund calls itself a private organization, and I do not think I have claimed that the "work" they do is directly funded by the Israeli government.

However, the fact remains that this private organization calls the land it owns, through purchase or confiscation, 'national land' which must be secured against Arabs, because it is the property of the Jews of the world, Israel's national constituency. This is clearly discriminatory, as you yourself pointed out, the Jewish National Fund:
One thing I would like to make clear, is that the JNF never confiscated any land. They don't have legal authority to do such. They only purchase the land, and purchase is purchase. If you own a piece of land, can you refuse someone to live there? I think you can. Same way an Arab Israeli can refuse to sell a house to a Jew.

The JNF is not a government organization. It is independent and non-profit, and does many things besides land purchases. For example, I donated $500 to it in the last year, for a program that plants trees in Israel. As for the land purchases, they are not forcing anyone to sell them anything. They offer people money, and if people want to sell, they do. It is just business, and a fair one at that. But the government has nothing to do with it.


Yet... this policy of redeeming the land for the Jewish people ( which is the JNF's "work") is consistent, or at least difficult to distinguish, from the Zionist point of view of the land as the sole property of the Jewish people, the true nationals of Israel, the rationale being that it is in the interest of Israel to increase the land owned by the Jews, not, understandably enough, the Arabs. And as far as I understand, although you seem to see the JNF as discriminating on the basis of ethnic origin, you would not say the same of Zionism?I think MGB8 answered some of that. I think I addressed parts of your concerns in this post: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=6646 It is just a very small sample of what Zionism is about.

Additionally, Zionism is an ideology. It is a collection of ideas about how people would like things to be. You presented quotes from Ahad Haam indicating problems between Jews and Arabs. You also posted a report by a commision that put quite a bit of blame on the Jews. But the behavior described in these is not in accordance with Zionist ideology. For you to judge Zionism by actions of some individuals is as wrong as for people to judge your religion, Islam, by actions of terrorists who slit people's throats. Or as you stated, "it’s never a good idea to rely on what others have said without checking up first, and to quote from a source (the Quran) you seem to have never read fully is definitely a bad idea."



Would you then agree that the government supports, theoretically at least, the Jewish National Fund's work?

I do not know if you read the article I posted fully...but I think it explains things quite coherently...
I just reread the article, and it is not factually correct. It emphasizes marginal issues, ignores the bigger ones, and presents outright lies. As I mentioned previously, JNF does not have any legal rights to confiscate any land. It is just like neither me or you, could not go somewhere within our respective countries and confiscate land, neither can JNF do such.




Well...apart from the fact that the United States grants tax-deductible status to many of Israel's "national" institutions...as if they are as qualified for income tax deduction as any contribution to any private, voluntary, American philanthropic agency in the US.

I do not know if the government, or members of it, are prohibited from aiding a private, philanthropic agency?
No, they are not. As a matter of fact the U.S. government gives a great deal of money to private and philanthropic orgranizations the world over.


A lot of things can fall under the issue of security...both in Israel and outside, especially in the last couple of years. Is land part of this, though? You could say that having Arabs (even if they are Israeli citizens/nationals) owning a lot of land threatens Israel's security I suppose...Of course, but that's why there is Supreme Court, where these issues can be appealed. This is a part of what makes Israel a democracy. There are laws that govern these issues, and if the government decisides to do something like this, they will be obliged to have a good justification for it, and to fully compensate the people they are displacing.


Perhaps I did not understand, but to me that does not exactly translate to, nor is it synonymous with "Jews are not privileged".

What I see is that “maintaining the Jewish identity of the state” automatically means that Jews are privileged. I can understand that of course, since the whole idea of Israel as a state "conceived for ethnic Jews, where Jews and Jewish concerns have overriding priority over other groups" is more or less constantly under threat....

But this goes back to my earlier point. Whatever the rationale, Zionism clearly does "discriminate.. on the basis of ethnic origin". Therefore I see it as racist.The same things you said about Jewish concerns in Israel, you could say about any national government. MGB8 provided you with some examples. Additionally, the other groups are under no threat. What threat is there to them? That someone will offer them money for their home? They can refuse that. Besides, all Israeli citizens are protected by the law. There is, and always will be freedom of religion. The Arabic newspapers in Israel are not censored. Arab communities are provided with monetary assistance for schools, and they are not discriminated against in any way from higher education. They enjoy same medical benefits as every other citizen. They vote for their representantives in free elections. Even Judaism's holiest site, the Temple Mount is ran by Islamic religious athorities because of its religious significance to Islam. Does this sound like oppression to you?

Also, you seem to assume that Israeli law is Zionism (or the other way around,) but it isn't. Israeli law is the law of the land, and Zionism is an ideology. They share some things, and they differ in others.

As for Zionist ideas being "racist," I think it is an oxymoron. Racism is an ideology of one race or ethnicity being superior to others. Zionism does not promote either racism, nor oppression. Not to forget that since both Jews and Arabs are Caucasian Semites that would make no sense whatsoever.

[Ophra]

Well said AJL :)

Jehan .... I live in close proximity to an Israeli Arab village ... many of the men work at my Kibbutz . We have developed very strong social ties throughout the years .... we share each others holidays,weddings etc.
My son plays on the local Arab football team.

I'm sorry .. but I really cannot agree to this statement : "But this goes back to my earlier point. Whatever the rationale, Zionism clearly does "discriminate.. on the basis of ethnic origin". Therefore I see it as racist."

[michael]

Jehan makes some excellent points.

The claims that Palestinian citizens of Israel do not suffer from discrimination is fantastical. Just look at the findings of the Israeli Governments own Or Commission report –“systematic discrimination”.

Land is the most obvious issue. The embodiment of this is the plight of the “unrecognized villages”. How they came to be “unrecognized” is instructive.

The Building and Construction Law of 1965 was the starting point for many. About 123 Arab villages were included on the initial district plans drawn up by the planning councils. Many small rural villages (Palestinian) were not included. Not being recognized on the plans, meant that under this law they were classified as agricultural land. This is a planning category under which no residences are permitted and are so automatically illegal.
Article 157A of this law also prohibits the connection of electricity, water, sewerage or any other municipal services to such “illegal” structures. Thus a legal basis exists for denying services to Palestinian Israeli citizens. Forty years later, many are still in this situation, the majority in the Negev, Galilee and the ‘Arab Triangle’.

The plan is to build townships to cater for the residents of these “unrecognized villages” as their homes are all slated for demolition or confiscation (around 1500 just in the Negev in 1996). The vacated areas will then become Jewish state land. Amusingly, the Markowitz Commission, created to deal with the problem, called the proposed new townships “concentration points”.

Theft by bureaucratic sleight of hand.

But maybe this is not discrimination, but unavoidable problems related to the small size of many of these villages?

The examples suggest otherwise. In the Misgav Regional Council, the Galilee village (Palestinian) of Umm Tanan had a population of around 2000 people in 2001 - it is “unrecognized” and so has no services. In the same region the Jewish settlement of Lavon housed a grand total of 2 families yet had all the usual services.

It can’t be date of establishment either as many of the “unrecognized villages” have been there for decades, but much more recent Jewish settlements make it onto the plans and so are recognized.

Perhaps it’s just coincidence or luck that such laws apply to Palestinian citizens but not to Jewish citizens in the same situation?


AJL talked about equal opportunity for higher education for Palestinian Israelis – “they are not discriminated against in any way from higher education”.
Well here’s a funny incident from last year that makes me think otherwise,

“There's no politically correct spin to put on it,and the facts speak for themselves: As soon as Israel's top university administrators noticed that the big winners from admissions policy changes were not Jewish youngsters from low-income towns, but rather Arabs, they reverted back to the old admissions system” – Haaretz, 27/11/03.

Hmmmm.

There’s a plethora of other points that could be made in answer to some of AJLs’ equally facile assertions, but unfortunately time doesn’t permit.

[Gilgamesh]

Just look at the findings of the Israeli Governments own Or Commission report –“systematic discrimination”. The commission was a political attempt of PM Barak to win the 2001 special elections. He failed. It is widely acceptable the results of the commission do not represent the reality but the agenda of thier commissiner.


Land is the most obvious issue. Call it afrimative action toward Jews, or the capitalist nature of the state of Israel. Once has to have money to own land.


The embodiment of this is the plight of the “unrecognized villages”. How they came to be “unrecognized” is instructive. They are unrecognized because the a huge Arab and Beduin land grabbing operations. When ever you squatter and build settlements on a land you didn't paid for, the settlement gets unrecognized. Goverment aid is forbiden to illegal settelments, Jew's or Arab.

Becuase of the sheer magnitude of the land grabbing and squatting, the goverment avoid using all the powers allowed by law, so to avoid large scale rioting. Far leftist, demand the goverment to acknowledge the squatting and land grabbing.


Theft by bureaucratic sleight of hand. Call it afirmative action toward Jews. Jews need land more then Arabs. Arabs can sattle in Arab lands, Jews can't.


But maybe this is not discrimination, but unavoidable problems related to the small size of many of these villages? It has to do with breaking our laws, and not getting bulldozed on time.

[Independent]

Ireland is an Irish State - it limits immigration and protects its heritage. Italy an Italian state, and does likewise. Ditto France. Ditto India. Ditto Japan. Ditto Germany. Ditto Russia. Etc. etc.

The Arabs nations - not only do they limit immigration, but in many (ie. Saudi Arabia) there is no freedom or religion whatsoever, and in other dhimmi-tude.

So, please, if Israel, national home to the Israelites, is racist, the ENTIRE WORLD is friggin racist.

And, what is REALLY discriminatory, what is REALLY racist, is applying one standard to one group (Jews) and a different, easier standard to everyone else.

So, Jahen, you see, YOU are the Racist. Zionism is just a nationalist movement.

Of all the countries that you mentioned, only the area known as Palestine has recently had a massive immigration problem where the immigrants pushed the indigenous population out of the land that they wanted to have. Only the people who lived in Palestine didn't have the power to protect themselves from the immigration. All of the other countries that you mentioned had this ability. This is the main difference here and the main problem.

While it is true that a long long time ago, cultures racially cleansed other cultures from the land that they wanted to have, things have changed these days and such activities are no longer so easy to get away with. If the immigrants had immigrated to the area 200 years ago, then the practice of racial cleansing would have been ignored by most of the world as it was in many other places.

Thus, I suppose that one could say that it is very unfortunate that Zionist chose to practice racial cleansing now and not 200 years ago or earlier. Personally, I have nothing against a racist/religious state as long as everyone in this state enjoys equal treatment and citizenship.

[Independent]

When ever you squatter and build settlements on a land you didn't paid for, the settlement gets unrecognized. Goverment aid is forbiden to illegal settelments, Jew's or Arab. Some unrecognized Palestinian villages have been around for more than a hundred years while some (or all?) recognized Jewish settlements in the occupied territories were built with Israeli aid on land that wasn't paid for.

33. On 10 February, Ha'aretz reported that £I 800 million had been invested in the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories since 1967. According to this report, 44 settlements had been established and 8 were under construction; these settlements are located in the Gaza Strip (11), including Sinai, the Golan Heights (19), and in the Jordan Valley (16).
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/be25c7c81949e71a052567270057c82b/ec7b65d2eb1bcfe90525658400585f1a!OpenDocument

Many of these villages existed long before the establishment of the State of Israel.
http://www.arabhra.org/rcuv/

[Jehan]

Ireland is an Irish State - it limits immigration and protects its heritage.

You are right. All nations protect their heritage. But that doesn't involve barring all people who are not members of one specific ethnic group from 93% of the land.


The Arabs nations - not only do they limit immigration, but in many (ie. Saudi Arabia) there is no freedom or religion whatsoever

(For the third time) I am not Saudi Arabia's ambassador, nor do I support their false sharia. But the numbers of immigrants in the Gulf states is actually quite high, and although you are right to say freedom of religion is not quite perfect, not everyone is a Muslim...so it does (sort of) exist.


people often use same words to describe different things.

As I said, I do not mind what you call them, nor do I myself see "Israeli Arab" as an oxymoron, but I try to refer to people as they identify themselves. However, this is not really the issue...

There is something that has become a little confused, and I'd appreciate it if you could clarify your position on:

You stated that the JNF is not a governmental agency because the governement would not be allowed to "discriminate...on the basis of ethnic orgin."

I took that to mean you feel that the JNF does "discriminate...on the basis of ethnic orgin." Have I understood that correctly?


If you own a piece of land, can you refuse someone to live there? I think you can. Same way an Arab Israeli can refuse to sell a house to a Jew.

AJL, you have made this analogy before. I understand what you are trying to say: the Jewish National Fund can do what it likes with the land it buys, legally. I certainly don't have a problem with that. What I am trying to discuss is the position, and funding behind this, as well as it's ultimate aims. What I mean is: how, and, more importantly why would all non-Jews be barred from "national land" in a country that calls itself democratic?


The JNF is not a government organization.

I have heard this at least three times, and even if I wasn't aware of it before, I think I am by now in perfect possession of it. I understand...it is a private purely philanthropic agency which plants trees in Israel most of the time but also buys up land and bars any one who is not a Jew from using it.


the behavior described in these is not in accordance with Zionist ideology. For you to judge Zionism by actions of some individuals is as wrong as for people to judge your religion, Islam, by actions of terrorists who slit people's throats.

I do not judge, that is not up to me.

What I say is only my own opinion, which I am willing to admit, could be wrong. So far though, this is what I see. Not because of the actions of some individuals...which is no way to evaluate any group...but by the idea behind the Zionist movement of creating a homeland for the Jewish people (ignoring the fact that other people had been living on this land, to the point of claiming that they don't even exist) where Jews would have "overriding priority".


I just reread the article, and it is not factually correct. It emphasizes marginal issues, ignores the bigger ones, and presents outright lies.

As I said, I am perfectly willing to admit that I was wrong, but not exactly for no reason. It would be helpful if you could explain which parts of the article are "outright lies", which are the "maginal issues", and what you see as "bigger ones".



the U.S. government gives a great deal of money to private and philanthropic orgranizations the world over.

What I meant was...the US government grants the JNF tax-deductible status, as if it were a private, voluntary, American philanthropic agency in the US, which it isn't. The question was about the Israeli goverment...


obliged to have a good justification for it, and to fully compensate the people they are displacing.

Do you believe that having Arabs (even if they are Israeli citizens/nationals) owning a lot of land threatens Israel's security? What does the Jewish National Fund mean to you in relation to this issue? What is a good justification?


Also, you seem to assume that Israeli law is Zionism (or the other way around,) but it isn't.

No, I see Israel as a secular state, which, I believe, it is. What I have been talking about is the Zionist Movement.


As for Zionist ideas being "racist," I think it is an oxymoron. Racism is an ideology of one race or ethnicity being superior to others. Zionism does not promote neither racism, nor oppression. Not to forget that since both Jews and Arabs are Caucasian Semites that would make no sense whatsoever.

I'm surprised that you see both Arabs and Jews as Semites...most pro-Zionists I have spoken to call that a lie. Perhaps that's because they would have a hard time telling me I'm anti-Semitic, if they concede to the fact that Arabs are Semites...

Perhaps I am wrong, and perhaps racist isn't the best word. But still...so far, from what I have seen I feel that Zionism sees the Jewish people as superior to other nations, which I see as racist.


I live in close proximity to an Israeli Arab village ... We have developed very strong social ties throughout the years

It's nice to know that...really. There aren't that many "good" stories in the news...perhaps that distorts the view of those of us who do not live in the area. I think there are 70 villages officially recognized by Israel as Arab, as in run by an Arab council...is that right?

You have your own views, and as I said, since you live in the area you probably see things from a different angle...but you know the story about truth being an elephant...

The thing is...in 1948, the Palestinian Arab community owned most of the land within Israel. Today it owns less than 3% of these lands. Did they really sell that much land? Why?

Most of the information presented here is compiled from Sabri Jiriye's work on the subject, which is based on Israeli government records:

The Zionist movement approved buying land in Palestine at its sixth convention in 1903. The first land was bought in 1905. In 1907 the Jewish National Fund (Kayron Kayem) was officially registered in Britain. Its goals were declared to buy lands in Palestine.

The total Jewish ownership of land in Palestine in 1947 was 1,734,000 dunums or 1,734 km, 6.6% of the land. The Jewish National Fund owned 933,000 dunums out of this.

The confiscation for Jewish settlement started well before the establishment of Israel. The British Authority in Palestine was preparing the country for the creation of the Jewish national homeland, introducing the Woods and Forest Ordinance in 1920, designed to confiscate lands utilized as grazing grounds by the rural/Bedouin community. These lands were then classified as state forest owned by the state, defined by the British Authority as "provincial reservation of scrub areas which are being protected so far as possible pending land settlement". With the establishment of the state of Israel on May 15, 1948, these lands were regarded as Israeli state lands.

Israel took control of the territories allocated to the Jewish state,and nearly 50% of the territories allocated to the Arab state under the 1947 UN partition plan, so a total of 15,025,000 dunum were considered state lands, including the lands classified as "forest" and lands not titled to individuals i.e. village lands.

After the 1948 war, Israel controlled 20.5 million dunums of the total land of Palestine, 78%. The majority owned by Palestinian residents who were evacuated from their villages or who fled their homes during the war.

In September 1948 a Trustee on Absentee Properties was appointed by Israel, with measures to organize the seizure and the allocation of properties. On March 15, 1950 the Israeli Knesset passed the Law of the Absentee Properties Law #5710. This law considered the Trustee on the Absentee Properties as the legitimate owner and gave him the authority to transfer ownership of properties to the Israeli Department of Construction and Development.In September 1953 the Trustee executed a contract with the Israeli Department whereby he transferred ownership of all the lands under his control to the department. The price was to be retained by Construction and Development as a loan. At the same time, the Trustee transferred the ownership of buildings in the cities to Amidar, an Israeli company set up to settle Jewish immigrants.Three months before this, the Jewish National Fund had executed a contract with Construction and Development whereby the department would sell 2,373,677 dunums of state lands to the JNF. The deal was completed after the transaction with the Trustee. Following this, the JNF "ownership" totaled over 90%. These properties are referred to as the "nation's land" limited to the use of Jews.

[Mediocrates]

Of all the countries that you mentioned, only the area known as Palestine has recently had a massive immigration problem where the immigrants pushed the indigenous population out of the land that they wanted to have.

Prove it.



Only the people who lived in Palestine didn't have the power to protect themselves from the immigration.

Absolute nonsense.


All of the other countries that you mentioned had this ability. This is the main difference here and the main problem.


Prove it.


Personally, I have nothing against a racist/religious state as long as everyone in this state enjoys equal treatment and citizenship.

They do.

[Mediocrates]

You are right. All nations protect their heritage. But that doesn't involve barring all people who are not members of one specific ethnic group from 93% of the land.

93% of the land is owned by the government not the people. You do understand the difference.



(For the third time) I am not Saudi Arabia's ambassador, nor do I support their false sharia. But the numbers of immigrants in the Gulf states is actually quite high, and although you are right to say freedom of religion is not quite perfect, not everyone is a Muslim...so it does (sort of) exist.

As long as you're a muslim.


Perhaps I am wrong, and perhaps racist isn't the best word. But still...so far, from what I have seen I feel that Zionism sees the Jewish people as superior to other nations, which I see as racist.


It's largely irrelevant how you see it. I imagine Russians and Koreans and Auklanders think they are wonderful people too. Don't most ARABS share that view?


The thing is...in 1948, the Palestinian Arab community owned most of the land within Israel. Today it owns less than 3% of these lands. Did they really sell that much land? Why?

No the Jordanian and Egyptian beneficiaries of the Mandate owned it. Take it up with them.


Israel took control of the territories allocated to the Jewish state,and nearly 50% of the territories allocated to the Arab state under the 1947 UN partition plan,

No - again Israel was accorded 13% of the Mandate you got the remaining 87%.


After the 1948 war, Israel controlled 20.5 million dunums of the total land of Palestine, 78%. The majority owned by Palestinian residents who were evacuated from their villages or who fled their homes during the war.

That's largely the downside of declaring war on someone. Bad things can happen to you. Or so they tell me.

[Independent]

Prove it.
Absolute nonsense.
Prove it.
They do.

It's all common knowledge, factual history known by most people. Look it up. :)

[Sword of Gideon]

It's all common knowledge, factual history known by most people. Look it up. :)

Its common revisionist knowledge

[MGB8]

First, much of the "Palestinian" population were themselves immigrants from neighboring Arab areas...since the nation state system was a historically recent inovation in the Arab world at that time. Nor was their a "nation" of Palestine, or an ethnic group called "Palestinians" - there were various local and semi-local Arab tribes and villages in the area, and there were also indigenous Jews.

Jews did move in waves, over 70 years before Israel's creation, but they did not cause the expulsion of a large number of the Arab locals....had the Arabs accepted the UN Partition plan, they would have retained the vast majority of the land, and there would have been no refugees. But the Arab nations did not believe that these immigrants and also children of "indigenous" Jews deserved to rule over the land that they already owned, and in the areas were they were already the vast majority. Instead, Arab/Islamic nationalism demanded that the Jews either be subjugated or subject to genocide - it seems that the latter was preffered.

The Arabs lost.

As far as I know, never in the history of the world has a nation been demanded of by other nations to give land it conquered in defensive wars. Yet that is the position of the Arabs - that the grant of soveriegnty to the Jews of land that they owned and were vast majorities in is illegitmate (a racist belief), and therefor even recognition of Israel is a "concession", and ditto to the land Israel subsequently won in 48-49. Thus the idea that the Arabs "gave up" something in agreeing to Oslo - they gave up nothing but a racist mythology, and they didn't really give it up, either. Then the land Israel won in 67 (and re-won after the cowardly Yom Kippur attack), mind you from JORDAN and EGYPT, not the "Palestinians" - the Arabs have decided that, against all historical precedent, this too does not give the nation a claim on the land. Another example of Arab racism.

Now, that doesn't mean that there isn't reason for Israel to give up a portion, even the majority, of the WB and Gaza. There certainly are.

Oh, as for land ownership - look at the Pal Arab laws about selling land to Jews, or the Arab state laws, including in Jordan and Syria, who had large Jewish populations before they expelled them.

As for Michael, again he tries to hide the forrest with individual trees. First, there is the issue of the fact that Arabs have been very succesful in the Israeli judicial system rectifying problems, ie. the route of the fence...so the issue arrises of what certain villages have done via the legal system. There are problems with the report in general. But even then, of course, in every mixed nation you always have problems between the majority and minority, that is the very reason that Jews MUST have ONE Jewish state, where THEY ARE THE MAJORITY. Factor in the religious and nationalistic tensions, and its amazing things aren't MUCH worse in regards to treatment of Pal Arabs - an Arab nation would have killed them all - look at how Syria treated Hama or Jordan treated its Palestinians in the 70's. Look at how Kuwait, S.A. and Iraq expelled their self-styled Palestinian refugees - and look at the lack of regard that such refugees are held in the Arab world - often described as dangerous parasites.

Again, the double standard which Jehan and Michael use to judge Israel as opposed to the rest of the world - that is the real inditia of racism.

[Independent]

First, much of the "Palestinian" population were themselves immigrants from neighboring Arab areas...since the nation state system was a historically recent inovation in the Arab world at that time.
It's true that people have immigrated to the place hundreds and thousands of years ago. Nevertheless, I think that when people live in a place for hundreds or thousands of years, they are the indigenous population, even if immigrants refuse to accept this fact. Palestinians are the indigenous people of the area known as Palestine for the same reason that recent immigrants from Europe, Africa and Asia are becoming the indigenous people of the area known as Palestine. One can either respect the people who lived on the land before one moved there, or one can become a racist.

Nor was their a "nation" of Palestine, or an ethnic group called "Palestinians" - there were various local and semi-local Arab tribes and villages in the area, and there were also indigenous Jews.

It's not easy to create an independent state when one is occupied by foreign powers. Just look at the situation today. The people want independence but the occupying force won't let them have it.

If the people want to be an ethnic group called Palestinians, then they are an ethnic group called Palestinians and the only ones who can prevent this from being a fact are Palestinians. Zionists might hate it that people want to be Palestinians, but people are simply the people that they want to be. One can either accept it and live with it or become a racist.

I recommend that folks respect others and treat them the same way that they treat themselves because racism is not a good thing and international folks enjoy criticizing racists of all flavors.


Jews did move in waves
Exactly. These people are from Europe, Asia and Africa and are becoming the indigenous people of the area known as Palestine, but they also need to live with the indigenous people who lived there before they did. Certainly, many immigrants may have had ancestors who were once the indigenous people of the place many thousands of years ago, but since then, other people have become the indigenous people of the place too.


, over 70 years before Israel's creation, but they did not cause the expulsion of a large number of the Arab locals.... Ask any Zionist and they will tell you otherwise. Even the Irgun exaggerated about the number of innocent civilians that they massacred for the purpose of creating fear so that people would flee.


had the Arabs accepted the UN Partition plan, they would have retained the vast majority of the land, and there would have been no refugees. No Palestinians were invited to any Zionist conferences or even to create the Belfore Declaration or the Palestinian Mandate. It's only natural that people will not accept something that they were excluded from. Since Palestinians were excluded from discussions about their homeland, there is no reason why they should be punished. One must work with the people who live on the land, not against them.

But the Arab nations did not believe that these immigrants and also children of "indigenous" Jews deserved to rule over the land that they already owned, and in the areas were they were already the vast majority.
Of course not. Why should they? They wanted a democratic place where all races, cultures and religions can live equally together as they did before the massive of immigrations.

Instead, Arab/Islamic nationalism demanded that the Jews either be subjugated or subject to genocide - it seems that the latter was preffered. Because the immigrants believed such myths, they treated the indigenous population in very unfriendly ways which resulted in riots and protests. In response to these riots and protests, the immigrants used terrorism (Irgun, Stern Gang, etc.) to scare away the indigenous population and prevent the British from reducing immigration.

The Arabs lost.This is true. Palestinians didn't have an army, they were not skilled in combat and their weapons were not as good as those that the immigrants had. They even sought help from others which didn't help much. Nevertheless, they still live on the land and they still haven't been given citizenship and equality in Israel. Even the Palestinian Mandate called for citizenship and equality for everyone, but unfortunately, Palestinians didn't know this because no one invited them to help create this Mandate.

As far as I know, never in the history of the world has a nation been demanded of by other nations to give land it conquered in defensive wars. Defense? Most of the time, Israel attacked others, for the same reasons that Saddam attacked Kuwait!

[Gilgamesh]

Some unrecognized Palestinian villages have been around for more than a hundred years while some (or all?) recognized Jewish settlements in the occupied territories were built with Israeli aid on land that wasn't paid for.

He who wants to build a village or town, must lease land from the goverment, and recive the needed permits. Arabs often do not get such permit, do not care to pay the taxes, and do not want to collaborate with the laws and organizations of national planing and construction.

It is a political problem, dervied from the Arab inability to recognize the state of Israel and the Jews ownership of the land. Such political luxarcy carry a price tag: No goverment help to breakers of our law.

Arabs recoginize the laws of Israel only where is comes to walfare.

One cannot break the law and expect help, kill his own parents and beg for mercy and walfare because one is orfen. It doesn't work no more.

Jews often do get the permits, pay the taxes and collborate with the committies and commissions and laws made for national planing.

Arabs who also act according to laws, also live in recognized towns.
There is a huge Beduin town, right out my window, called Rahat. (Find it on the map). It is recognized.

In the PA, Arabs have their own laws and their own problems, who got nothing to do with "settlements".

[Oh Jerusalem]

Nevertheless, I think that when people live in a place for hundreds or thousands of years, they are the indigenous population
A lie repeated is still a lie.

Who are the Palestinians? (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=2030)

[Independent]

A lie repeated is still a lie.

Who are the Palestinians? (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=2030)

The worst thing about accepting Palestinians for who they are is that they wouldn't have a reason to dislike you. Thus, there is really no reason for you to not accept people for who they are if you don't like hostilities.

As we well know, the purpose of the "Palestinian" identity is the desire to not be "transfered" to Jordan because Palestinians live in Palestine and not in Jordan.

[Oh Jerusalem]

The worst thing about accepting Palestinians for who they are is that they wouldn't have a reason to dislike you. Thus, there is really no reason for you to not accept people for who they are if you don't like hostilities.
So much nonsense in so few words.

Did it ever occur to you that they are disliked because their national charter calls for our eradication?

But don't bother asking them the same question.

As we well know, the purpose of the "Palestinian" identity is the desire to not be "transfered" to Jordan because Palestinians live in Palestine and not in Jordan.
But they don't want to get along. So one of us has got to go. And one of us already has a country with 70% of the population from the same roots.

[Gilgamesh]

It's true that people have immigrated to the place hundreds and thousands of years ago. a lie already debated. See Oh Jerusalem, above.


they are the indigenous population, even if immigrants refuse to accept this fact. How could the Arabs be "indigenous" when they live in cities and towns mostly built by our ancestors!!! In many cases, they where even too lazy to change the Hebrew orginal names to Arabic... On other cities, they use the Greek name... Not the Arab...


One can either respect the people who lived on the land before one moved there, or one can become a racist. It works both ways. Arabs are racists for hating me, and I hate racists regardless of their ethnic makeup. Arabs could show some respect to Jews and the laws of the country they live in.


It's not easy to create an independent state when one is occupied by foreign powers. True! Very True! Doesn't that mean it's high time for Arabs to look for other alternatives? If Israel is a determind as a rock, and Jews tied up to thier lands like mountains of Judea... should it not be more fruitful for the Arabs to take somebodies elses land for their independence?


Just look at the situation today. The people want independence but the occupying force won't let them have it. Looks like it will remiand that way for centuries to come. We Jews have the paitiance. Do the Arabs as well?


If the people want to be an ethnic group called Palestinians, then they are an ethnic group called Palestinians and the only ones who can prevent this from being a fact are Palestinians. If we the people of 141 Lincoln St. on FDR road, want to be an ethnic group called the "wreckwreckboinkkians" then we are an ethnic group. This is enough to declare independence and fight for our rights (and not paying taxes or obay annoying stupic traffic laws of the "occupaying power" of Greater Johnson town. Right?

Freedom to the "wreckwreckboinkkians!!!" suicide bombing is also "understandable" in such awful sircumstances of occupation.


Zionists might hate it that people want to be Palestinians, You can't hate someone for his ignorance. All people were born ignorant. Our problems arise when peope won't do anything to end their state of ignorance.


but people are simply the people that they want to be. One can either accept it and live with it or become a racist.
Freedom to the "wreckwreckboinkkians!!!" Racist is who stand in our way of not paying taxes or parking where ever we feel like!!


I recommend that folks respect others and treat them the same way that they treat themselves because racism is not a good thing and international folks enjoy criticizing racists of all flavors. Jews are a nations. "Palestinians" is a fabricated nation. If they have problems with us they are free to move out. Many do.
Since Judasim is also a nation, we speak our anciant language, we have our anciant rituals, and most anciant philosophy and religion to prectice... we also have rights. He who seeks, for whatever excuse, to deny us our rights, while not demanding similar things from other nations (test case: Greeks), is a racist!!! Anti Zionism == Denying Jews their rights == Racisma and Antisemetism.


Exactly. These people are from Europe, Asia and Africa and are becoming the indigenous people of the area known as Palestine, but they also need to live with the indigenous people who lived there before they did. So to what place, other then Israel, Jews are indiginous of?
We Jews never considered ourselves indiginous of any country outside the lands of Israel, and were never considered indiginous in any of the countries Jews live in Jewish diaspora.


Certainly, many immigrants may have had ancestors who were once the indigenous people of the place many thousands of years ago, but since then, other people have become the indigenous people of the place too. Rights for land and property never expire. Aspecialy, when we never left of our free will. Ourcountry was ruined by Roman invaders. Curse upon them and their decesdents... (the curse worked. No Romans exist today).


Ask any Zionist and they will tell you otherwise. Even the Irgun exaggerated about the number of innocent civilians that they massacred for the purpose of creating fear so that people would flee. So Sorry... The Irgun never massacred. The exagurations all belong to the Arab radio and press. They keep doing so all the time. (See the Iraqi war... Minister A Sahaff talking about "no American soldiers in Baghdad" while American tanks were rolling outside his window - encountering no resistance).


No Palestinians were invited to any Zionist conferences or even to create the Belfore Declaration or the Palestinian Mandate. Zionism is Jewish national liberation movement. The number of Jewish Arabs can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Arabs converted to Judaism are invited to the Zionist cause.


It's only natural that people will not accept something that they were excluded from. Why should Arabs be involve in a Jewish national movement? Like asking German Nazis to help lieberating Poland...


Since Palestinians were excluded from discussions about their homeland, Arabs are the invadors, the occupayers. Israel is not their land.


there is no reason why they should be punished. Terrorism is good enough reason for most people.


One must work with the people who live on the land, not against them. You are right, but sometimes, these people are leaving us no other choise.


Of course not. Why should they? They wanted a democratic place where all races, cultures and religions can live equally together as they did before the massive of immigrations. Had that was the thing, "all races and cultures and religion" Why arabs got a problem with Jews, even before Israel was created?


to scare away the indigenous population and prevent the British from reducing immigration. Arabs pressured the British goverment to limit Jewish immigration in times of War in Europe, in a time of WWII and the holocaust. The Holocaust could have been prevented to decreesed, if the Jews had an open escape route outside of Europe, to Israel.

The Arabs, collaborated by fact with the Holocaust.


This is true. Palestinians didn't have an army, they were not skilled in combat and their weapons were not as good as those that the immigrants had. They even sought help from others which didn't help much. On May 15, 1948 7 Arab armies invaded Israel. You call it not help?

Both the Jewish freedom fighters, and the Arabs, had thesame british rifles, only the Arabs, had more.


Nevertheless, they still live on the land and they still haven't been given citizenship and equality in Israel. Arabs with Israeli citizenship have more rights in Israel, then Jews. There are 10 Arabs out of 120, in Israel's Knesset. of those, 2 Arabs are Druz, hold the rank of Colonels in the IDF and voted by Jews, to serve in Sharon Likud party. How is that for you?


Even the Palestinian Mandate called for citizenship and equality for everyone, but unfortunately, Palestinians didn't know this because no one invited them to help create this Mandate. The Mandate was given to the British, not the jews, not the Arabs. The purpose of the Mandate is to create SEVERAL Arab states, and a Jewish state. the Region of the Mandate covered 2/3 of the Arab world, including Saudia, Iraq and Palestine. Palestine intended to be Jewish, with Arab national minority and the rest is Arab land. The Brits defied thier mandate and diveded Palestine into two parts, the larger part became trans-Jorden headed by thier puppet Abbedula I.


Defense? Most of the time, Israel attacked others, for the same reasons that Saddam attacked Kuwait! Hardley! Israel was attacked by terrorists, and shelled and enemy forces were massing on our borders, when we have finaly attacked... Arabs were an EXISTANCIAL threat to Israel, Kuwait was never such a thing for Iraq.

[Independent]

Did it ever occur to you that they are disliked because their national charter calls for our eradication? It's only logical that people would create such a national charter when people have so little respect for them. Certainly, such a national charter would have never been created if people had had more respect for Palestinians.


But they don't want to get along. So one of us has got to go. And one of us already has a country with 70% of the population from the same roots.With the Israeli rejecting the talks of Taba 2001, the Arab Peace Plan, the Geneva Accords and the Road Map, one can't claim that Palestinians are to blame, especially when Israelis won't accept Palestinians for who they are and praise transfer theories. With this understanding, no one needs to go anywhere, but people do need to learn how to respect for others.

[Independent]

a lie already debated. See Oh Jerusalem, above.

Just because Zionists don't want to believe the obvious, that doesn't mean that it is a lie.


How could the Arabs be "indigenous" when they live in cities and towns mostly built by our ancestors!!! That's like saying that Jews were not the indigenous people 2000 years ago since they originally moved from Egypt to the area known as Palestine and lived in cities built by the Caanans, Eblaites, Sumerians and others. If Palestinians are not the indigenous people, then Semite Jews certainly aren't either. If you don't believe that Palestinians are the natives of the area known as Palestine, then why do you believe that Jews are not the natives of Egypt? I mean, that's where they came from, right?

[Sword of Gideon]

It's only logical that people would create such a national charter when people have so little respect for them. Certainly, such a national charter would have never been created if people had had more respect for Palestinians.

With the Israeli rejecting the talks of Taba 2001, the Arab Peace Plan, the Geneva Accords and the Road Map, one can't claim that Palestinians are to blame, especially when Israelis won't accept Palestinians for who they are and praise transfer theories. With this understanding, no one needs to go anywhere, but people do need to learn how to respect for others.


Camp David was an exellent deal but the Terrorat would not take it

[Gilgamesh]

Just because Zionists don't want to believe the obvious, that doesn't mean that it is a lie. Just because defenerat from whistlestopper forum who read solely Arab propaganda don't believe in Zionism and equal rights to Jews, that doesn't mean Zionism is a lie. It means you people are ignorant degenerats.


That's like saying that Jews were not the indigenous people 2000 years ago since they originally moved from Egypt to the area known as Palestine and lived in cities built by the Caanans, Eblaites, Sumerians and others. We Jews are Sumerians, we came to the region from Ur, which was a Sumerian city state. By now, all Sumerians were utterley extinct, at any times, no Sumerians were living in out country (other then us). So, the last King Gilgamesh... is Jewish... ironic?

The cities Arabs are living in, were first build by Jews. Very few of the cities were built by the Cannanites or others, and Jews live in later. Jews are believed to come to the land of Israel from Egypt 37 centuries ago. Jews came to Israel from Ur, over 45 centuries ago.

Last, I would, upto a degree, accept the right of Some Cnannites to live in some regions or cities of Israel. (Not all Cnannites were living in the land of Israel). But, can you show me ONE person who REALLY IS a Cnannite? Someone who has a Cnananite religion, proven Cnanite history, speaks Cnanite language, eat Cnannite food? Can you show me such a person?

And no, I won't take some Arab word claiming that he is "Cnannite" because Cnannite are not Arabs. Arabs are a different people.


If Palestinians are not the indigenous people, then Semite Jews certainly aren't either. All Jews, other then converts, are Semites. There are no Jews who are not Semites and not converts.


If you don't believe that Palestinians are the natives of the area known as Palestine, then why do you believe that Jews are not the natives of Egypt? I mean, that's where they came from, right? Before Egypt we lived else where, and before that, we lived some place else. So what are we? Where do we belong?

Fact of the matter is, that there was a state, a kingdom called Judea which was existed for many centuries, untill the Romans wiped it off following a failed rebalion. We hoped to be aided by other nations equally longing for freedom, and it hadn't happened.

while Judea existed, a "Palestine" never existed as a free nation. It was a name created by the occupayers for an ill defined region, it's borders constantly shifting, that included some of the land of Israel. Palestine is a Roman invention made to humiliate Jews. To "wipe out" Jews name in the country. Palestine was never a state, autonmy or anything. Just a province of someone's larger empire. Even the Arabs occupaying our land following the 7th century... hadn't named the region as "Palestine". They divided the country into provinces which carried the name of a regional capital city. That it.

"Palestine" was nothing but a geographic term. Never a practicle functioning state and people, like Judea used to be.

We Jews are called so, because we are refugees from Judea. You can't compare our story to anything. We are unique set of people, with a highly unique history. Obviously, we have unique problems that demand unique solutions. Zionism is such a solution.

We are Jews from Judea, the same way French are from France and Greek come from Greece. It is a proven history, that other nations called us "Jews", as we called ourselves, since we came from Judea.

Maybe, calling our state "Israel" was a mistake. We should have calling it Judea. It can be changed, if we wish it to.

[michael]

There are so many interesting points to respond to, but I'll just pick a few notable ones.

“They are unrecognized because the a huge Arab and Beduin land grabbing operations. When ever you squatter and build settlements on a land you didn't paid for, the settlement gets unrecognized. Government aid is forbidden to illegal settlements, Jew's or Arab” – Gilgamesh

Some of the villages were new post-48, but many also were there pre-48 but had simply never been placed on the district plans and so are automatically “unrecognized” – these are Gilgameshs’ “squatters”. Others grew outside their recognized boundaries, as planning authorities almost never granted permits for Palestinian Israelis to build.
By contrast, in 2001 there were 155 Jewish settlements that were not on the district plans, and therefore should be “unrecognized”, but were supplied with all municipal services, despite this being “forbidden”.

Many of these ‘squatters’ actually have title to their land. Under the notorious provisions of such laws as the 1950 Law for the Acquisition of Absentee Property, they have only one right to their land – the right to sign a sale contract and then receive paltry compensation. The land then passes to the ILA for the exclusive use of Jewish citizens of Israel.
Should the landowners try to claim their land, they are told that they are “absent” and it is considered confiscated. To be considered absent you only had to be away from your property for any length of time, visiting family, on holidays, it didn’t matter. Some never left the borders of the new state and became known as the “present absentees”. And naturally the law was retrospective. Even better, the law stated that if a mistake had been made and the owner actually wasn’t absent and could prove it – it didn’t matter, the confiscation was irreversible.

Perfect.

Despite this, some even to this day refuse the compensation because they refuse to sell their homeland.

Those who live in these “unrecognized villages” live with the threat of eviction and home demolition even if it is land that they have title to.


The use of military ordinances was quite common earlier, but Israel found that it was becoming rather bad for international public relations. These military regulations allowed areas of land to be declared “closed”. People were then evicted from these “closed’ areas (for their own safety naturally), then it was declared “abandoned”, and was then transferred to the state, courtesy of the Emergency Articles for the Exploitation of Uncultivated Areas. This land would be handed over to the ILA, who would ensure that the land did get cultivated in accordance with the Emergency Articles – by Jewish citizens only, of course. How neat is that?

What was most interesting about the military ordinances, was that they were implemented by the British in the 1940’s and used against the Jews. The new state of Israel found them just as useful. But they caused a furore at the time. This is what a future Israeli Minister of Justice said about these laws at the time of their original enactment by the British,
“...unparalleled in any civilized country; there where no such laws even in Nazi Germany. There is indeed only one form of government which resembles the system in force here now- the case of an occupied country” -Yaacov Shimson Shapira.





“…there is the issue of the fact that Arabs have been very successful in the Israeli judicial system rectifying problems” – MGB8

Well it’s true they have tried. Even back in the 1950’s, when this system of crude land expropriation was in full swing.

Famously, 3 villages (Kafr Bir’im, Irqit and Ghabsiyya) whose residents were expelled via military orders, appealed to the High Court. The Court found in their favour. But those residents never went back. Just to show them how things really worked, the Israeli armed forces blew up and bombed the villages to rubble, despite the residents’ win in Court.
A salutary lesson, that legalistic niceties were little more than a bureaucratic veneer to cover the over-riding goal – to transfer land from Palestinian ownership to Jewish control.



“Again, the double standard which Jehan and Michael use to judge Israel as opposed to the rest of the world - that is the real inditia of racism” – MBG8

This old stand-by. Others are worse, so why criticize Israel? Well I guess I could go on and on about the crimes of other states, but I thought that this was IsraelForum not SyriaForum.

MGB8 is right that other neighbouring states do at least as bad in regard to treatment of minorities, but generally with one minor difference. Only Israel, this “light unto the nations”, loudly proclaims its’ virtues and its’ wonderful democracy . So while others indeed do terrible things, most aren’t quite so hypocritical about it.

[MGB8]

Independent,

You are clearly VERY ignorant of the facts and history surrounding the pre-48 mandate. For example, many of the Arab immigrants (and migrants) to the area, in fact the MAJORITY in numeric terms, came at about the same time the Jews started coming, often after. The British helped this to happen, too.

Moreover, the idea of a "Palestinian ethnicity" wasn't used by any arabs until the 1960's! Before then, the term "Palestinian" generally referred to JEWS. After all, Palestine is just a Roman word, made to replace the orginal name, which the Romans adopted for the area when they conquered it - JUDEA, but they changed the name to punish the Jews for their uprisings. The British, successors to Rome in many ways, simply adopted the name.

There are many more problems with your posts, too. You need to do a lot of homework.

However, I fear that you will only look for revisionist (false) stuff that suits what you want to believe anyway. The question becomes, and remains - why do you want to believe what you do? Answer that and maybe you will become a better person.

[MGB8]

Michael has at least displayed some honesty here, even if it has proved his anti-semitism.

Because, of course, Israel does have problems, and it really doesn't declare itself a light onto nations, its only states that it is doing the best and most moral things it can, on the whole, in light of very trying circumstances.

Of course, the rest of the world doesn't do "as bad" as Israel does. Syria, Jordan, all the Arab regimes...and, in reality, all of the European nations, via their proxies and their international political support - do MUCH WORSE. There has been no Israeli Hama. No Israeli Tianemin Square. No Israeli Darfur or Rwanda. No Israeli Bosnia. And this, when Israel is under more military and political pressure than ANY of these other places...where Israel is faced with a more powerful enemy, in turms of the Islamic Ummah, the great Arab and even greater Islamic quasi nation. Nor does any nation have as tenuous political support as Israel - Israel is alone, even the US, its only real ally, is also just as real an ally of regimes that make up and rule its mortal enemies. Only Israel is not seeking to destroy its Mortal enemies, only survive. But its mortal enemies - S.A., Iran, the rest of the Muslim Ummah - they are quite open, at least in Arabic, about their goal of the destruction and genocide of Israel.

Meanwhile, people like Michael are harder on Israel, more focused on Israel, for lesser wrongs than their own states make, and while Israel is under much more pressure, forced to make harder choices.

That, people of this forum, that boils down to jew-hatred. That is anti-semitism. And that is Michael, and much of the Arab/Islamic world, if not Europe as well.


There are so many interesting points to respond to, but I'll just pick a few notable ones.

“They are unrecognized because the a huge Arab and Beduin land grabbing operations. When ever you squatter and build settlements on a land you didn't paid for, the settlement gets unrecognized. Government aid is forbidden to illegal settlements, Jew's or Arab” – Gilgamesh

Some of the villages were new post-48, but many also were there pre-48 but had simply never been placed on the district plans and so are automatically “unrecognized” – these are Gilgameshs’ “squatters”. Others grew outside their recognized boundaries, as planning authorities almost never granted permits for Palestinian Israelis to build.
By contrast, in 2001 there were 155 Jewish settlements that were not on the district plans, and therefore should be “unrecognized”, but were supplied with all municipal services, despite this being “forbidden”.

Many of these ‘squatters’ actually have title to their land. Under the notorious provisions of such laws as the 1950 Law for the Acquisition of Absentee Property, they have only one right to their land – the right to sign a sale contract and then receive paltry compensation. The land then passes to the ILA for the exclusive use of Jewish citizens of Israel.
Should the landowners try to claim their land, they are told that they are “absent” and it is considered confiscated. To be considered absent you only had to be away from your property for any length of time, visiting family, on holidays, it didn’t matter. Some never left the borders of the new state and became known as the “present absentees”. And naturally the law was retrospective. Even better, the law stated that if a mistake had been made and the owner actually wasn’t absent and could prove it – it didn’t matter, the confiscation was irreversible.

Perfect.

Despite this, some even to this day refuse the compensation because they refuse to sell their homeland.

Those who live in these “unrecognized villages” live with the threat of eviction and home demolition even if it is land that they have title to.


The use of military ordinances was quite common earlier, but Israel found that it was becoming rather bad for international public relations. These military regulations allowed areas of land to be declared “closed”. People were then evicted from these “closed’ areas (for their own safety naturally), then it was declared “abandoned”, and was then transferred to the state, courtesy of the Emergency Articles for the Exploitation of Uncultivated Areas. This land would be handed over to the ILA, who would ensure that the land did get cultivated in accordance with the Emergency Articles – by Jewish citizens only, of course. How neat is that?

What was most interesting about the military ordinances, was that they were implemented by the British in the 1940’s and used against the Jews. The new state of Israel found them just as useful. But they caused a furore at the time. This is what a future Israeli Minister of Justice said about these laws at the time of their original enactment by the British,
“...unparalleled in any civilized country; there where no such laws even in Nazi Germany. There is indeed only one form of government which resembles the system in force here now- the case of an occupied country” -Yaacov Shimson Shapira.





“…there is the issue of the fact that Arabs have been very successful in the Israeli judicial system rectifying problems” – MGB8

Well it’s true they have tried. Even back in the 1950’s, when this system of crude land expropriation was in full swing.

Famously, 3 villages (Kafr Bir’im, Irqit and Ghabsiyya) whose residents were expelled via military orders, appealed to the High Court. The Court found in their favour. But those residents never went back. Just to show them how things really worked, the Israeli armed forces blew up and bombed the villages to rubble, despite the residents’ win in Court.
A salutary lesson, that legalistic niceties were little more than a bureaucratic veneer to cover the over-riding goal – to transfer land from Palestinian ownership to Jewish control.



“Again, the double standard which Jehan and Michael use to judge Israel as opposed to the rest of the world - that is the real inditia of racism” – MBG8

This old stand-by. Others are worse, so why criticize Israel? Well I guess I could go on and on about the crimes of other states, but I thought that this was IsraelForum not SyriaForum.

MGB8 is right that other neighbouring states do at least as bad in regard to treatment of minorities, but generally with one minor difference. Only Israel, this “light unto the nations”, loudly proclaims its’ virtues and its’ wonderful democracy . So while others indeed do terrible things, most aren’t quite so hypocritical about it.

[Gilgamesh]

I read through your post, some of the details are new for me, others are crude pervesion of reality, others are misleading partial truthes ignoring the full picutre (such as court orders, or the goverment side).

The very attempt to bind all the little stories into one story of "evil Zionist grabb land", is wrong. Some other time I'll go through all the details and sort them up to prove people where the demonic leftist distortion lays. I have full trust in other members of this forum who can do such a job, using the powers of the internet to a great sucsess in debunking each of your accusations.

I am not saying your fact are all wrong. I am saying you present a partial distorted picture.

The question in hand is:
1. To whom the land of Israel belongs to, Jews or Arabs.
2. Can a goverment, any goverment, evict population for any reason, or just the Israeli goverment is forbiden to do such a thing.
3. Have the Arabs recived proper compansations for their lost land, or haven't they, and for what reason.

[Independent]

Independent, You are clearly VERY ignorant of the facts Is that how Zionists talk? Zionists have very interesting word combinations! :)


and history surrounding the pre-48 mandate. For example, many of the Arab immigrants (and migrants) to the area, in fact the MAJORITY in numeric terms, came at about the same time the Jews started coming, often after. The British helped this to happen, too.

This does not disprove the fact that some Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine.


Moreover, the idea of a "Palestinian ethnicity" wasn't used by any arabs until the 1960's! Before then, the term "Palestinian" generally referred to JEWS. After all, Palestine is just a Roman word, made to replace the orginal name, which the Romans adopted for the area when they conquered it - JUDEA, but they changed the name to punish the Jews for their uprisings. The British, successors to Rome in many ways, simply adopted the name. This is true. Nevertheless, if Palestinians want to call themselves Palestinians to demonstrate that they are not Jordanians, then they are Palestinians, no matter how much you dislike the fact.

However, I fear that you will only look for revisionist (false) stuff that suits what you want to believe anyway. The question becomes, and remains - why do you want to believe what you do? Answer that and maybe you will become a better person.
Why do you believe that only the Zionist version of history is the only truth? I like reading history from many different sources, like the US Library of Congress (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+il0015)) and the UN Question of Palestine. I think that some Zionist history is true, but not all of it.

Notice that no where in the Library of Congress can one find evidence that some Palestinians are not former Jews, or never mixed with Jews, Canaans or others.

[Independent]

Did Zionists add this historical knowledge in their history books or did they forget to mention how they started the conflict?

Before the Second Aliyah, the indigenous Arab population of Palestine had worked for and generally cooperated with the small number of Jewish settlements. The increased Jewish presence and the different policies of the new settlers of the Second Aliyah aroused Arab hostility.
US Library of Congress (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+il0022))

[Independent]

Just because defenerat from whistlestopper forum who read solely Arab propaganda don't believe in Zionism and equal rights to Jews, that doesn't mean Zionism is a lie. It means you people are ignorant degenerats. Where did you learn such friendly language? From Zionism? Why am I not surprised? It's really no wonder why a conflict exists between Zionists and Palestinians.


We Jews are Sumerians, we came to the region from Ur, which was a Sumerian city state. By now, all Sumerians were utterley extinct, at any times, no Sumerians were living in out country (other then us). So, the last King Gilgamesh... is Jewish... ironic?

According to the US Libary of Congress, Jews had to obtain the land of Canaan from the people who lived there meaning that Jews are not, from a Zionist perspective, the indigenous people of the land of Canaan. Does the US Library of Congress need a Zionist update of history that is not a "lie"?

Nevertheless, I enjoy learning history with you. History is always fascinating.


But, can you show me ONE person who REALLY IS a Cnannite? Someone who has a Cnananite religion, proven Cnanite history, speaks Cnanite language, eat Cnannite food? Can you show me such a person? That's the problem. One can't prove who mixed with the Canaans and who didn't. Thus, there is no reason why one should not believe that some Palestinian ancestors were Canaans.

[MGB8]

Independent, its good that you are beginning to educate yourself on this issue, but its clear from your posts that you are just beginning, don't pretend otherwise - it not only weakens your credibility but also marks you as deceitful.

Now, onto your most recent post - there is a lot of truth to that. While the ottomans ruled the land, pre-2nd aliyah, before internal arab nationialism in the modern sense was an issue, there was a general level of cooperation and good will, as there often is even now between neighboring villages and downs when they are not caught up in the nationalistic conflict. This statement whitewashes things like Dhimitude and problems between neighbors, which also occured, but is more or less correct.

Michael had in one post brought up that Jews admit that Zionism was POLITICALLY, the aggressor - that is to say, Zionist sought to change the status quo, to demographically dominate a small portion of under-populated land, a tiny portion of the mid-east that they had historical ties to, and in that land they dominated demographically, to have a sovereign nation.

The Arabs, some viewing the Jews as an extension of the crusading West, and more simply realizing that the Jewish political ambitions conflicted with their own political ambitions (They wanted a state there too - remember, the Turks rule it at this time, and then the British), decided that a Jewish state on any of this land was unnacceptable, and resorted to violence. The Jews were violent back. This went back and forth until 1948 - and in 1948 the greater Arab/Islamic world attempted genocide on Israel, to enforce their political aims - because 99.5% of the Middle East wasn't enough - 100% only would do. Meanwhile, back to 1948, at this time the "Palestinians" were Jews, and the local Arabs, many of whom were migrants or were recent immigrants themselves, not only did not accept the partition, but didn't accept it when they lost the war.

This is, of course, the most basic fact. When other people's lose wars, they accept the consequences and move on with their lives. These people could have easily re-intigrated into Jordan or Lebanon or Syria or Egypt - but those nations, and the leaders of those peoples, chose not to allow that to happen - because 99% of the middle east is not enough.

It was the decision of the Arab states, of the UN, and of some (not all) of the local Arab leaders that lead to the creation of a Palestinian national movement, of a Palestinian Arab "ethnicity", although it really doesn't meet the requirements of an ethnicity. Its just a bunch of different ethnic Arabs who share political ambitions - not a nation yet, but a group with national ambitions. They became more of a coherent group, however, much in part to discrimination from other Arabs.

That's all fine and good. But just because someone has ambitions doesn't mean that they deserve to have those ambitions fullfilled. They may, or they may not, and that greatly depends.

Never in the history of mankind, as far as I know, has a nation that won land in defensive war have demanded of it that it give up ALL that land (much less put itself at risk for national suicide.) Yet people like you and others on this forum do it all the time. The question is, why Israel and no other nation?

[Independent]

The cities Arabs are living in, were first build by Jews. Very few of the cities were built by the Cannanites or others, and Jews live in later. Jews are believed to come to the land of Israel from Egypt 37 centuries ago. Jews came to Israel from Ur, over 45 centuries ago.

This site seems to claim otherwise:

Canaan before the Hebrews - Canaan had been a collection of city-states, tributary to the Egyptian Pharoah, as attested to in the Tel- El Amarna tablets. The breakup of the Egyptian empire beginning about 1500 BCE made possible the invasion of the Hebrews. The map shows the probable location of cities in Canaan about 1200 BCE.

Israel in Early Times - According to Hebrew tradition, 12 tribes entered Cana'an from Egypt and conquered it, led by Moses.
http://www.mideastweb.org/palmaps.htm

Is mideastweb.org telling lies, like how you folks are claiming, or is it true that Cana'ans and not Jews or Palestinians are the true indigenous people of "Israel"? According to this site, Jews moved to the area the same way that Palestinians moved to the area, assuming that Jews and Palestinians are not result of Cana'ans who had sex with others.

[MGB8]

Independent,

from your posts, you have identified yourself as a person who wants to hurt the Jewish people. An enemy. Don't expect nice and friendly treatment - like anyone else, we are not going to be nice to you when you support essentiall our death.

As for the Canaanites - they were not a nation, this is prenational times by an extreme degree - they were a bunch of various tribes in various city-states in the area. And, I'm sure they came from somewhere else, too - considering man didn't evolve in Canaan - just like Abraham came from Babylonia/Mesopotamia. Regardless, the Canaanites no longer exists. There are no decendents of Canaanites. Some may have gone and founded other nations. Others may have been absorbed into other ethnicities, including Jews. Others ... died out. There are no more Phoenecians either.

But, there is still the Nation of Jews...the first nation in the Land of Canaan. And there is a nation of Israel, surrounded by a Muslim Ummah that wants to committ genocide against that nation, and a gentile world to morally bankrupt and cowardly to do anything but aid the Ummah, with the exception of the United States and some other countries.

[MGB8]

That quote you just cited makes a distinction from "Jews" who came with Moses after he received the torah, and the Tribe itself, which originated from Ur (Babylon/Mesopotamia region) with Abraham and his sons.

Of course, the fact that you can't decipher this, and the way you are using your sources, highlites your ignorance and your bias.

[Independent]

Never in the history of mankind, as far as I know, has a nation that won land in defensive war have demanded of it that it give up ALL that land (much less put itself at risk for national suicide.) Yet people like you and others on this forum do it all the time. The question is, why Israel and no other nation?

The problem, my friend, is very simple. People live on this land. Thus, if one wants to have the land, one must accept the people who live on the land. If one cannot accept the people who live on the land, then one must remove them. Today, forcefully removing people from the land that one wants to have is known as racial cleansing or genocide depending upon how it is practiced. Due to changes in communication and transportation, the world has changed dramatically within the last few years to the point where suddenly acts of racial cleansing or genocide are criticized globally. That's the main problem that Zionists are experiencing today and this is a big problem for Zionists. In my opinion, the best way that Zionists can deal with this problem is to treat others in kind and friendly ways, accepting them for who they are, while they attempt to use economics and politics to achieve what they want. I think that Zionists have almost reached this point, but they need to improve their practices slightly in this area.

[Gilgamesh]

Is that how Zionists talk? Zionists have very interesting word combinations! :) Nope. It stating the obvious about you. You are ignorant. You are trying to be Michele over here, but you hadn't read enough Arab propaganda... and even then you have to be basicly knowladgeable of match the right lie to the correct subject.

Saying cliches like "Zionist talk" won't make you sound any smarter. We don't feel you are smart enough to be evil like Michele of your home forum. This is the reason we do not lose hope about you and have trust in you. You are obviously too dumb to be curropted, so we can fix you.


This does not disprove the fact that some Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine. "some Palestinians" could be five, three of them Jews. The problem is not with "some" or "majority", but with identity. "Palestinian" identity is Arab. Not Cnannite. They speak Arab, and practice Islam and UNDISTINGUISHABLE from any other Arab in the region. There is NOTHING that makes the "Palestinian" unique.


This is true. Nevertheless, if Palestinians want to call themselves Palestinians to demonstrate that they are not Jordanians, then they are Palestinians, no matter how much you dislike the fact. "Freedom to the wreckwreckboinkkians" !!! (See my above post)


Why do you believe that only the Zionist version of history is the only truth? Basicly yes. The only Zionist account of things is true because of Jewish high moral standards. One of the many things making Jews unique.


I like reading history from many different sources, Nope, you read Michele posts and thinks them to be history.


Notice that no where in the Library of Congress can one find evidence that some Palestinians are not former Jews, or never mixed with Jews, Canaans or others. I never say they didn't. I say their genetic history is meanigless because they lost their orginal identity. They were all assimilated into the Arabs, with in all aspects imagionable. There is nothing that make "Cnannite" Arabs unique from other Arabs. They all assimilated into oblivion. A set of genes is not the only claim for national self determination. More importantly are unique cultural features, which the "Palestinians" had none unique.

[Independent]

That quote you just cited makes a distinction from "Jews" who came with Moses after he received the torah, and the Tribe itself, which originated from Ur (Babylon/Mesopotamia region) with Abraham and his sons.

Of course, the fact that you can't decipher this, and the way you are using your sources, highlites your ignorance and your bias.

Pardon my ignorance and bias, but doesn't that mean that Jews are the indigenous people of Iraq, from a Zionist perspective? This is confusing, however, because didn't Arabs come from places like Iraq too? I must be very ignorant, but it does really seem as if all are Semites and no one knows which Semites mixed with Cana'ans, right?

Interestingly, if we study this topic back far enough, we'll discover that everyone, including Jews and Palestinians came from Africa!! :) So, basically, we are all the indigenous people of Africa and Africa is our true homeland. I think that I should immediately begin buying land in Africa before more people realize this fact and land values skyrocket!

[Gilgamesh]

The problem, my friend, is very simple. People live on this land. Thus, if one wants to have the land, one must accept the people who live on the land. If one cannot accept the people who live on the land, then one must remove them. Thank you for accepting the morality of transfare of Arabs out of the lands of Israel!!!


In my opinion, the best way that Zionists can deal with this problem is to treat others in kind and friendly ways, accepting them for who they are, while they attempt to use economics and politics to achieve what they want. I think that Zionists have almost reached this point, but they need to improve their practices slightly in this area. I agree to this greatly!!!

We have a breakthrough with Independent!!! Hura!! Hura!! :cheers:

In deed, Israelis buy lands of any size from Arabs and for handsome sums of money. Apartments, yards, lots... in Jerusalem, in Jaffo, in the Judea and Smaria... all over... and rebuild Jewish towns and villiages, commonely known as "settlements".

[Independent]

Nope. It stating the obvious about you. You are ignorant. You are trying to be Michele over here, but you hadn't read enough Arab propaganda... and even then you have to be basicly knowladgeable of match the right lie to the correct subject. Saying cliches like "Zionist talk" won't make you sound any smarter. We don't feel you are smart enough to be evil like Michele of your home forum. This is the reason we do not lose hope about you and have trust in you. You are obviously too dumb to be curropted, so we can fix you.

Wow, Zionist language. It is music to my ears... the sound of conflict! :)



"some Palestinians" could be five, three of them Jews. The problem is not with "some" or "majority", but with identity. "Palestinian" identity is Arab. Not Cnannite. They speak Arab, and practice Islam and UNDISTINGUISHABLE from any other Arab in the region. There is NOTHING that makes the "Palestinian" unique. Of course some Palestinians are Arabs and others are Jews, who over the years, enjoyed experiencing love with other human beings.


I never say they didn't. I say their genetic history is meanigless because they lost their orginal identity. I don't see it that way. One doesn't have to believe in a specific religion or belong to a specific culture to love the land that one lives on.


They were all assimilated into the Arabs, with in all aspects imagionable. There is nothing that make "Cnannite" Arabs unique from other Arabs. I think that Palestinian Arabs are very different from Algerian Arabs who live isolated in the mountains and speak a different dialect. But, that's just me.


They all assimilated into oblivion. A set of genes is not the only claim for national self determination. More importantly are unique cultural features, which the "Palestinians" had none unique.

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Palestinians to know if this is true. I wish that there were some Palestinians here who could tell us more about themselves. I do know, however, that Palestinians are different from other people in the sense that they all seem to share the same love for the land that they live on. That is, i find, a good reason alone to identify oneself as something unique from others who don't have this same attachment to the land.

[MGB8]

The internal Israeli debate now is this:

What are the consequences of holding on to control of certain parts of land versus giving up control to these tracks?

After all, chances are that violence will not stop with the giving up of land, in fact, violence could well escalate with more damaging attacks by the Pal Arabs against Israel, requiring a stronger Israeli response (and potentially pushing the entire region towards war).

That's the issue - how much, if any, land can Israel legitimitaly afford to give to the Palestinians? And, if they can't afford to give any, a minority view but with a lot of logic behind it, what can be done about it, what are the consequences of any such actions?

There are no perfect choices here....no set of actions that will lead to a certain wonderful, peaceful outcome. Only tough decisions that will have downsides and unintended consequences, and a choice of the lesser of the evils.

[Gilgamesh]

Where did you learn such friendly language? From Zionism? Why am I not surprised? It's really no wonder why a conflict exists between Zionists and Palestinians. ROFL!!! :D
Your Michele impression (from your home forum) doesn't look good on you. You practice it badley due to imance ignorance.


According to the US Libary of Congress, Jews had to obtain the land of Canaan from the people who lived there meaning that Jews are not, from a Zionist perspective, the indigenous people of the land of Canaan. Does the US Library of Congress need a Zionist update of history that is not a "lie"? We have no doubt that Israel's ancestors, the Isealites, took the land from the Cnannites by force, by war ect... it happend some 37 centuries ago. We have no question about it. The bible says so, and archeological digs in Zionist Israel confirm it. If ANY Cnannite would like to file a sue in court for his own lost property, and supplay us with the details and profs as the court may demand... he will be compansated.

The only problem is, where such Cnanite be found? All the Cnanites are gone and buired. Fully assimialted into other nations. In an era when "ethnic cleansings" were quite common.... The early Americans "occupayed" their lands from native indians quite recently... few centuries ago, and many American indians still esist. So, it either very dumb or very hypocritical of you to stick to this point of view, the we Jews are "Occupayers" of a land own by other nation 37 centuries ago, a nation lost and vanished 25 centuries ago. We, Jews survived all these centuries to claim back what is ours.


That's the problem. One can't prove who mixed with the Canaans and who didn't. Thus, there is no reason why one should not believe that some Palestinian ancestors were Canaans. I don't disprove it. I say this date is MEANINGLESS. irrelevant.

[Independent]

Thank you for accepting the morality of transfare of Arabs out of the lands of Israel!!!

I agree to this greatly!!!

We have a breakthrough with Independent!!! Hura!! Hura!! :cheers:

In deed, Israelis buy lands of any size from Arabs and for handsome sums of money. Apartments, yards, lots... in Jerusalem, in Jaffo, in the Judea and Smaria... all over... and rebuild Jewish towns and villiages, commonely known as "settlements".

Gilgamesh, you must understand me. I am independent. I don't hate anyone, I don't want to pick sides and I just like discussing things, analysing the questions in my mind. From a moral perspective, I might not agree with some things, but that doesn't stop me from wondering how people who believe in something can achieve what they want. I really don't care who wins or who loses in this conflict, but I do care about human lives on all sides and how humans can gain what they want while harming others as little as possible, preferably not at all.

[Independent]

ROFL!!! :D
Your Michele impression (from your home forum) doesn't look good on you. You practice it badley due to imance ignorance. One of these days, I'm sure that if I talk to Zionists often enough, I'll begin talking like them. But, I hope that that day will never come because I prefer to be polite as often as possible. :)

The only problem is, where such Cnanite be found? All the Cnanites are gone and buired. Fully assimialted into other nations. In an era when "ethnic cleansings" were quite common.... The early Americans "occupayed" their lands from native indians quite recently... few centuries ago, and many American indians still esist. So, it either very dumb or very hypocritical of you to stick to this point of view, the we Jews are "Occupayers" of a land own by other nation 37 centuries ago, a nation lost and vanished 25 centuries ago. We, Jews survived all these centuries to claim back what is ours. This is the core of my argument. What happened to the people? Where did they go? What happened to these people who lived in Palestine 2000 years ago? Where did they go? From a genetic and historical perspective, many of these people became those who describe themselves as Palestinians today.

[Mediocrates]

That quote you just cited makes a distinction from "Jews" who came with Moses after he received the torah, and the Tribe itself, which originated from Ur (Babylon/Mesopotamia region) with Abraham and his sons.

Of course, the fact that you can't decipher this, and the way you are using your sources, highlites your ignorance and your bias.


If you were talking cultural anthropology you would have to discriminate Habiri or Habiru or Apiru [Hebrews] from Israelites from Jews. They are not all the same thing. But as I've said before it really doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure I can find some group, in existance or not, who could make a claim they wandered across this rock or that field 3000 years ago. This entire argument is silly because it pretends there was something like reliable facts, zipcodes, map coordinates way back when. One can flip open a Torah at random and find it's littered with place names for places that don't exist, or have more than one name, or thought of as more than one place.

The Levant has been overrun by the Egyptians, Hyskos, Israelites, Phoenecians, Berbers, Canaanites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Muslims, Crusaders, Mongols, English, French, Jordanians, Turks and now the Palestinians.

[Canajew]

Is that how Zionists talk? Zionists have very interesting word combinations! :)



This does not disprove the fact that some Palestinians are the indigenous people of Palestine.

This is true. Nevertheless, if Palestinians want to call themselves Palestinians to demonstrate that they are not Jordanians, then they are Palestinians, no matter how much you dislike the fact.

Why do you believe that only the Zionist version of history is the only truth? I like reading history from many different sources, like the US Library of Congress (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+il0015)) and the UN Question of Palestine. I think that some Zionist history is true, but not all of it.

Notice that no where in the Library of Congress can one find evidence that some Palestinians are not former Jews, or never mixed with Jews, Canaans or others.
yes yes. And you cannot prove that you have not read the book I am holding in my hands right now. Terrible logic.

[MGB8]

Of course, "independent", you are not thinking about how the Arabs conquered all their lands (much more recently than the Jews conquered Canaan) in the Asia Minor, East Asia, and Africa. Meanwhile, you are attempting to use the term Zionist like Republicans use the term "liberal."

But we are proud zionists, as all a zionist is (at this point in history) is a person who believes that the Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel. There are extra-conotations, depending on which zionist subgroup, but the basic idea is that. That's why Iran (and the Pal Arabs) call Israel "the Zionist entity".

Medio,

I am more and more in agreement with you about the relevance of the history. However, it is a very good way of proving the basic issue about Israel not wanting to destroy anything, and the collective of Muslim and Arab nations, wanting the genocide of the Jews, or at minimum the destruction of Israel - but that is more recent history.

[michael]

Independent,

You are clearly VERY ignorant of the facts and history surrounding the pre-48 mandate. For example, many of the Arab immigrants (and migrants) to the area, in fact the MAJORITY in numeric terms, came at about the same time the Jews started coming, often after. The British helped this to happen, too.


This is true as long as you are one of the faithful that pay homage to Joan Peters' and her work of astounding mendacity -"From Time Immemorial", which claims to 'prove' this particular idea of the Palestinians being recent immigrants, mostly attracted by Zionist settlement. Some even like to claim that most of the Palestinians were these recent 'immigrants'.

Unfortunately it's an "hysterical" (according to Daniel Pipes) account that's rather loose with the truth. Which no doubt explains its' attraction to people such as MGB8.

In a back-handed way, this need to prove that Palestinians are recent arrivals just underscores the weakness of the Zionists' historical claim to Palestine.

[Canajew]

This is true as long as you are one of the faithful that pay homage to Joan Peters' and her work of astounding mendacity -"From Time Immemorial", which claims to 'prove' this particular idea of the Palestinians being recent immigrants, mostly attracted by Zionist settlement. Some even like to claim that most of the Palestinians were these recent 'immigrants'.

Unfortunately it's an "hysterical" (according to Daniel Pipes) account that's rather loose with the truth. Which no doubt explains its' attraction to people such as MGB8.

In a back-handed way, this need to prove that Palestinians are recent arrivals just underscores the weakness of the Zionists' historical claim to Palestine.
or alternatively it is an effort to use the same sorts of manipulative devices used by the Palestinaisn to win points in the PR world in an attempt to neutralize the effect of the Palestinaisn' lies and distortions. problem is the Israelis have never been as good as the arab world in this regard. Something about a free society with a free press doesn't allow these sorts of things to get the same mileage in Israel as in the Arab world, where the Palestinaisn are descendants of the ancient Canaanites and the Jews' were originally from Sri Lanka.

[MGB8]

The full Daniel Pipes quote Michael cites to, which Michael splices to decieve (read: lie) this audience:

From Time Immemorial quotes carelessly, uses statistics sloppily, and ignores inconvenient facts. Much of the book is irrelevant to Miss Peters's central thesis. The author's linguistic and scholarly abilities are open to question. Excessive use of quotation marks, eccentric footnotes, and a polemical, somewhat hysterical undertone mar the book. In short, From Time Immemorial stands out as an appallingly crafted book."

"Granting all this, the fact remains that the book presents a thesis that neither Professor Porath nor any other reviewer has so far succeeded in refuting. Miss Peters's central thesis is that a substantial immigration of Arabs to Palestine took place during the first half of the twentieth century. She supports this argument with an array of demographic statistics and contemporary accounts, the bulk of which have not been questioned by any reviewer, including Professor Porath."

Abu Afak was very right about you, Michael, you are a dishonest person, and, of course, you know my opinion on your (lack of) morality.

PS. I have also taken a little time to read the debate over the book and its methods, and the contrary opinion, taken by Porath and others, is just as mired in assumptions as is Peter's work, and really has less support.

[Independent]

The full Daniel Pipes quote Michael cites to, which Michael splices to decieve (read: lie) this audience:

Tell me more about Daniel Pipes. Who is this person? What are his qualifications? Why do you believe that Daniel Pipes is not telling the truth?

[Independent]

Of course, "independent", you are not thinking about how the Arabs conquered all their lands (much more recently than the Jews conquered Canaan) in the Asia Minor, East Asia, and Africa. Meanwhile, you are attempting to use the term Zionist like Republicans use the term "liberal."

So, since Jews were the first people to invade Canaan, they are the only people who have the right to live there? That doesn't make a lot of sense. It's more logical to say that historically, the place was invaded by many different people. In my opinion, the only people who have the right to live there are the people who live there, no matter who they are or where they come from and anyone can gain the right to live there by kindly living with the other people who already live there.


But we are proud zionists, as all a zionist is (at this point in history) is a person who believes that the Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel.

No one said that Zionists cannot believe, for one reason or another, that the area known as Palestine is their homeland instead of Ur (Iraq) where Semite Jews originally came from. People have the right to believe crazy things, no matter how crazy or logical these things may be. What is important, however, is that these crazy ideas don't cause harm to others. In the past, one could harm others, but today it has become more difficult to harm others because of crazy or logical beliefs.

[Oh Jerusalem]

In my opinion, the only people who have the right to live there are the people who live there, no matter who they are or where they come from and anyone can gain the right to live there by kindly living with the other people who already live there.
That wouldn't be a problem except that the people you're referring to are interested in our country's destruction and never cease to continue confirming that ultimate goal.

For the last 4 years, they've not ceased their terrorizing, which they had promised to do. Old habits are hard to kill.

It's time to boot the terror addicts out of the neighborhood.

No one said that Zionists cannot believe, for one reason or another, that the area known as Palestine is their homeland instead of Ur (Iraq) where Semite Jews originally came from. People have the right to believe crazy things, no matter how crazy or logical these things may be. What is important, however, is that these crazy ideas don't cause harm to others. In the past, one could harm others, but today it has become more difficult to harm others because of crazy or logical beliefs.
Why are the Arab and Moslem crackpot ideas of slaughtering the Jews not the ideas you accuse of being crazy and harmful to others.

Typical anti-Semitic hypocrite. A dime a dozen.

[Gilgamesh]

So, since Jews were the first people to invade Canaan, they are the only people who have the right to live there? We may not be the "first" people who invaded Cnaan, because it is highly probable the Cnaanites themselves where invaders as well, predating the Israelite invastion in few centuries... We Jews are the first SURVIVING invadors of Cnaan, hence the original owners, the indeginious de jure, of the land of Israel.

Arabs are later invadors, and they never considered "Palestine" as a country, just a geographic term.


It's more logical to say that historically, the place was invaded by many different people. Well, this is historical untrue. Israel was not invaded by Indians and not by Africans. It was invaded once by Monglos, but that was the Gingis Hans generals way to say hellow and explore the world. Mongles hadn't settleled the land of Israel like they did in Russia or the way Jews settled the land of Israel. So Israel was not invaded by "many different" but by Jews and Arabs. A spacific real and currently living nations.


In my opinion, the only people who have the right to live there are the people who live there, no matter who they are or where they come from and anyone can gain the right to live there by kindly living with the other people who already live there. This is true for the USA. Not for a nation state like Israel, or Greece.
By your logic, none Jews can become a majority, and change our laws. Again, Jews will become a minority. In such a case, what will become of Jewish rights once Jews lose their self sovereignity? What about our self determination? There will be nothing different between Israel and other coutries of the world, and we Jews want Israel to be unique.
What about Jewish immigrants wishing to move in. Immigration is always a burden on Israel's economy. Always was. But Israel was created SPACIFICLY to shelter and absorbe Jewish immigrants and refugees from all over the world. Economical affects on Israel do not play any role in absorbing Jewish immigrants. Israel's population grew in 400% in the 50's, and 20% in between 1989-1993. There is no parallel for such a growth.

An Israel where Jews are a minority, will have different morality and different migration policy. Once again, Jews might find they have no place to run to, in times of crisis.

The other point in your post, Independent, is the "the right to live there by kindly living" . All the problems in Israel arise when people, mostly Arab muslems, choose out of their own free choise, NOT to live kindly with people who already live there...

You never heard of a Problems with Christian Arabs, or Druz Arabs, or even some spacific clans of Muslem Beduins. They made, out of their own free choise to live peacfuly and promote their rights in a democratic peaceful manner while fully colaborating and respecting the Jewish people and the laws of the land. We don't force them to be Jewish. We ask them to obey our laws as any other citizen, and demand their rights through courts and democratic process.


What is important, however, is that these crazy ideas don't cause harm to others. You are right. But what is the lesser harm? The fact that Jews will be vullenrable to some future holocaust because Arabs fear for their lands and forbid Jewish immigration to Israel, the way it used to be in the last holocaust? Jews could run from Nazi empire to Israel. All other states were forbiding Jewish immigration and the Arabs pressured the British goverment to forbid Jewish immigration. We will not have it again. We Jews must have a land for our selves, this is far higher moral directive, in any civilization regardless of race or religion, then Arab land right. Arabs may demand conpansations... but ownership of land or "independece" they must realize someplace else.


In the past, one could harm others, but today it has become more difficult to harm others because of crazy or logical beliefs. You are wrong. See al quida, see Arafat.

[Gilgamesh]

But, I hope that that day will never come because I prefer to be polite as often as possible. :) Why? You think Michele is polite? Or you accuse Zionism as impolite ideology? If you accuse spacific Zionists in impoliteness, what Zionism as a whole has to do with anything? Can you answer my questions?

As for your ignorance, it was a fact, not a slur directed at you. But no worries. Stay here, and we will fix your ignorance problem in now time.


This is the core of my argument. What happened to the people? Where did they go? What happened to these people who lived in Palestine 2000 years ago? Where did they go? From a genetic and historical perspective, many of these people became those who describe themselves as Palestinians today. Good questions! In a nutshell, all these people have vanished. These people assimilated several times before assimilating compaletley into the Arabs. Jewish communities, however small, existed all that time in Israel, in a continious and highly documented fasion all the time of the exile in the last 2000 years, never leaving Israel.

Assimilation is when people marry other people, and lose their memory of past, forget their history, their culture and later all unique charasteristics of the previous nation. For all reasons, they lost their original identity becomeing a whole different nation. Such are the Arabs.

Beyoned the Cnaanites, there were Romans and Greeks living in Israel. They assimilated to into the Arabs... like Jews who were forced to convert. As Israel economical statud declined over the middleages, the population of Israel declined rapidley. People migrated to all over the ME, to Egypt and Iraq, and plauges depleated the population greatly by the time of the first Zionist immigrations, the land was empty from most of it's population. Let alone the "original" population that either died or scattered.

Jews brought jobs. Jobs brought money. And Arab economical migration started. Jewish Zionist original agricultural technics (since European technology couldn't answer all the problems in Israel) ended famin which was periodic disaster in the region. Another reason for Arabs to migrate to live among Jews. And they migrated from all over the ME over half a century. Such a migration contintinous today through "family reunitions" which is a human right and fictitious marriges. I've heard of Iraqis and Syrians reciving Israeli medical care and walfare payments... because they are registered as Israeli citizens, for marring an Arab with Israeli citizenship... There is little control of this untill some new laws came out and drawn alot of fire.

No worries mate, other European countries, and maybe the USA itself suffers from similar problem of large scale walfare frauds.

Genetics was never ever a reason to state ownership or indetity, as cultural identity is. In Jewish case, we have everything: The genes, the culture, the history, the moral need and the moral right.

What Arabs got in comparison to us? Next to nothing!

Also, there is a strong contradiction in Arab propaganda... on first they claim to be "anciant" on the other hand they claim their national inditity is new... (any national idenitity could emarge on some certain time in history... ). Obviously, such obvious contradiction never bothered different Anti Zionists.

[Independent]

Why? You think Michele is polite? Or you accuse Zionism as impolite ideology? If you accuse spacific Zionists in impoliteness, what Zionism as a whole has to do with anything? Can you answer my questions? As for your ignorance, it was a fact, not a slur directed at you. But no worries. Stay here, and we will fix your ignorance problem in now time.


Defending the behavior of others while behaving like them? Why am I not surprised? The behavior of others explains a lot about them. As for the rest of what you write, it's probably just the expanded form of the above text. If you would like to discuss things in a friendly way, then do it. :) If not, that's fine because there are many polite people in this world who enjoy good converstations.

[Gilgamesh]

I do care about human lives on all sides and how humans can gain what they want while harming others as little as possible, preferably not at all. Funny, we all here, think alike on this subject. What we do not agree, is which way will save most lives. Saving Jewish lives is an integral part of Zionism since before Day 1.

As a Jew and a Zionist, I also think into the past and future alike. It means we have to prepare oursleves, and our countries to certain lessons we picked up in the past and might susstain again unless we act now. We have a larges scope to look at while considering the question of harming as less people as possible.

We Zionist believe we Jews are in need of the land of Israel, for the interest of saving lives, more then the Arabs, who being undistinctable from other Arabs, can settle other Arab lands now arid and vecant. If Arabs could have been nice to us, water and energy problems could have long been solved by now, using Jewish technology.

[Gilgamesh]

Of course some Palestinians are Arabs and others are Jews, who over the years, enjoyed experiencing love with other human beings. Inventing new history are you? Brought in a piece of la-la land over here?


One doesn't have to believe in a specific religion or belong to a specific culture to love the land that one lives on. I may "love" a certain block in New York. I doesn't give me any rights of ownership over it.


I think that Palestinian Arabs are very different from Algerian Arabs who live isolated in the mountains and speak a different dialect. But, that's just me. The people you talk about are not Arabs, they don't talk Arabic but a language called: "Berber" These people are the indiginous people of the north Africa, pushed by the Arabs into the Sahara desert more then a thousand years ago. Algierian ARabs, however, speak Arabic, carry Arab names and look Arabs, and consider themselves as Arabs, eat Arab food and listen to Arab music. Different from the Berberians you talk about.

NOTE: The Berber may have few more names for the same people. The are also considered Semites...


I do know, however, that Palestinians are different from other people in the sense that they all seem to share the same love for the land that they live on. I love my land. Does that make me a Palestinian? We Jews proved we are ready to die for our land, even more then the Arabs.


That is, i find, a good reason alone to identify oneself as something unique from others who don't have this same attachment to the land. Arabs, as conquerers and invaders and migrants, proved they can invent new love for other people land with too much of great ease. Don't you think?

In our case, let the Arabs rediscover thier love for the lands they first came from, lands that are not claimed by us Zionists.

[Jehan]

Mediocrates:



93% of the land is owned by the government not the people. You do understand the difference.

It just so happens that 93% of the only democratic country in the middle-east can only be used by people who happen to be Jews. You do understand the implication.

Furthermore... are you disagreeing with AJL over who is behind the Jewish National Fund? What do you mean by "the land is owned by the government not the people"? Does land "owned by the government" i.e. "national land" mean it can only be used by Jews? Why?



not everyone is a Muslim...so it [freedom of religion] does exist.
As long as you're a muslim.

Is it just me...or does this not quite make sense? Perhaps you can explain?


It's largely irrelevant how you see it. I imagine Russians and Koreans and Auklanders think they are wonderful people too. Don't most ARABS share that view?

I'm tempted to say it's largely irrelevant what you imagine....but I imagine that won't get the debate moving in the right direction...

Racism is when you see someone as superior because they are from a certain ethnicity or race.

Russians and Koreans think they're wonderful...So? they have a sense of nationalism... at worst an over-inflated ego. A Russian thinks he's better than a Korean because he happens to be Russian... he's a racist. Doesn't get much clearer.

If you think you're a wonderful person, why would I even be bothered?
If you think you are better than someone else because of ethnicity, you're a racist. Zionism sees "Jewish people" as better than non-Jews, Zionism is racist.

MGB8:


Oh, as for land ownership - look at the Pal Arab laws about selling land to Jews, or the Arab state laws, including in Jordan and Syria, who had large Jewish populations before they expelled them.

I have already heard the comparison to the Arabs expelling the Jews. My opinion may be irrelevant, but at least I have already said clearly what I believe: that was wrong. That should not have happened. Both the governments that were responsible and those who agreed with the action taken were wrong. It was a childish act of revenge. Many Arabs agree on this.

I await a clear statement regarding what you think of the fact that 93% of the land in a democratic country can only be used by someone who is a Jew.


As for what you (and Mediocrates) mentioned about the UN partition plan:


had the Arabs accepted the UN Partition plan, they would have retained the vast majority of the land, and there would have been no refugees.

If this plan was supposedly so good for the Arabs, just why is it the Arabs rejected it? Out of pure hatred? Cutting of your nose to spite your face?
Oh, the plan was fair enough. Except for the part few people mention.

The Jews were to be established as the ruling body.

Why? Because they had ruled this land 2000 years ago? No self-respecting people would accept this settlement without protest. Why should they?

The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country [this right] the United Nations had violated its own charter." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Besides which, the Zionists weren’t too happy with their “portion” themselves.

"While the Yishuv's leadership formally accepted the 1947 Partition Resolution, large sections of Israel's society - including...Ben-Gurion - were opposed to or extremely unhappy with partition and from early on viewed the war as an ideal opportunity to expand the new state's borders beyond the UN earmarked partition boundaries and at the expense of the Palestinians." Israeli historian, Benny Morris, in "Tikkun", March/April 1998.

"In internal discussion in 1938 [David Ben-Gurion] stated that 'after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine'...In 1948, Menachem Begin declared that: 'The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever." Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

"Before the end of the mandate and, therefore before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied...most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948. Tiberias was occupied on April 19, 1948, Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28, the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30, Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14, 1948...In contrast, the Palestine Arabs did not seize any of the territories reserved for the Jewish state under the partition resolution." British author, Henry Cattan, "Palestine, The Arabs and Israel."


First, much of the "Palestinian" population were themselves immigrants from neighboring Arab areas... Nor was their a "nation" of Palestine, or an ethnic group called "Palestinians".

Yes, the Palestinians are Arabs. Arab is a race, not a nationality. Among Arabs there are Muslims, Christians and Jews. Arabs were not permanently confined within one land.

Between 3000 and 1100 B.C Canaan covered the area of Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon and most of Syria and Jordan.

In 1800 B.C the Hebrews migrated there.

The Romans expelled the Jews in the second century A.D. The land did not become suddenly empty and barren waiting for the return of it’s “original sons.” Those who were left after the Roman expelled the Jews were a mixture of the old Canaanites, Persians, Samaritans, Greeks, and Arab descendents.

The Hebrews migrated to the area in 1800 B.C and ruled for about 414 years, likewise the Arabs migrated in the 7 century A.D, and have been living there ever since. It doesn’t matter if you believe or don’t believe that they exist. They don’t need your recognition that they are a people and have a country.

They were not squatters on the land of Israel, who had jumped into it from neighboring states somehow, and destroyed it’s quiet waiting for it’s children. The idea of a land without people for a people without land is laughable.

After paying a visit to Palestine in 1891, the Hebrew essayist Achad Ha-Am commented:" Abroad we are accustomed to believe that Israel is almost empty; nothing isgrown here and that whoever wishes to buy land could come here and buy what his heart desires. In reality, the situation is not like this. Throughout the country it is difficult to find cultivable land which is not already cultivated."



Jews did move in waves, over 70 years before Israel's creation, but they did not cause the expulsion of a large number of the Arab locals....

The Jews moved in waves…ok. At least you admit that much. Now tell me: how long was it till someone noticed the problem of land? Or do you seriously expect me to believe that if it hadn’t been for the Arab’s anti-Semitism all the Jews in the world would have fit in quite comfortably, side by side with their Arab neighbors?

As Davis Triestsch wrote to Herzl in 1899: " It's nonsense. You do not get ten million Jews into a land of 25,000 Km2".

The solution was clear enough, wasn’t it?

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
David Ben Gurion, future Prime Minister of Israel, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

"Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left." Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department in 1940. From "A Solution to the Refugee Problem" Joseph Weitz, Davar, September 29, 1967, cited in Uri Davis and Norton Mevinsky, eds., Documents from Israel, 1967-1973, p.21.

Martin Buber, Jewish Philosopher, addressed Prime Minister Ben Gurion on the moral character of the state of Israel with reference to the Arab refugees in March 1949: "We will have to face the reality that Israel is neither innocent, nor redemptive. And that in its creation, and expansion; we as Jews, have caused what we historically have suffered; a refugee population in Diaspora."


Instead, Arab/Islamic nationalism demanded that the Jews either be subjugated or subject to genocide - it seems that the latter was preffered.

Defending Zionism and accusing others of genocide simultaneously? That’s a difficult task. Too much irony.



Vladimir Jabotinsky (the founder and advocate of the Zionist terrorist organizations): "Has any People ever been seen to give up their territory of their own free will? In the same way, the Arabs of Palestine will not renounce their sovereignty without violence." Quoted by Maxime Rodinson in Peuple Juif ou Problem Juif.

David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): " If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif, pp. 121-122.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Mediocrates:
It just so happens that 93% of the only democratic country in the middle-east can only be used by people who happen to be Jews.
Of course! Our 1 million plus Israeli Arabs live on a pinhead.

Stupider and stupider. Are you a Quadafi blood relative, by any chance?

[michael]

Not quite a pinhead OJ, but close enough.

The other part of the plan to "dilute the Arab population" in the Galilee and Negev, is to then coerce them into the "concentration townships" (lovely term), that are being built.

Many, as I explained earlier, live in "unrecognised villages" , made that way through clever, if rather transparent, laws.

Consequently, many Palestinian Israelis find themselves living on state land, or agricultural land etc, and with demolition orders hanging over their heads.
In the Negev alone there are around 30,000 homes slated for demolition.

But best of all, once the pesky Arabs have been "concentrated", there will be even more land for the ILA to administer. Not just for Jews though, but for everyone to whom the Law of the Right of Return applies. What could be more democratic?

What on earth is Jehans' problem??

[Canajew]

It just so happens that 93% of the only democratic country in the middle-east can only be used by people who happen to be Jews. You do understand the implication.

and of course the remaining 99% of the landmass cannot be used by Jews, so on aggregate seems a trivial pitance. In Quebec, French Canadians have more rights than anglo-Canadians. is this necessarily wrong? Israel is like affirmative action for a historically disadvantaged minority (Gil's point with respect to no country in the world allowing Jews to flee there from the Nazis, British mandataroy palestine included, is whole applicable here), just different from Quebec (also democratic), it is wholly sovereign rather than part of a confederation of provinces (however decentralized). Quebec seeks out immigrants who speak french, takes legal steps to protect their cultural heritage and their distinct society, and should be fully entitled to do so.

They are in many ways more restrictive than Israel. Children who are born to parents who were not educated in English schools in Quebec, for example, are not allowed to go to english public schools but must go to French public schools, in order to preserve the distinct Quebecois identity.

Things are more complicated than you would like to assert with respect to the needs to preserve cultural distinction and the 'nationality' (which can easily be a sub-group of an actual nation, like in Quebec or with respect to the Kurds) of minority groups. Just because a tiny set of borders is drawn around a tiny group of people, rendering them a majority in the tiny little piece of land does not alter this calculus or the status of this group as a minoirty in the least.



Furthermore... are you disagreeing with AJL over who is behind the Jewish National Fund? What do you mean by "the land is owned by the government not the people"? Does land "owned by the government" i.e. "national land" mean it can only be used by Jews? Why?

Don't think it does mean this, but the govenrment certainly must take into account the national goals of the people. And in Israel's case one of the fundamental goals is to allow a place of refuge where Jews can be free and sovereign and in control of their military and government and destiny. I undertsand that you are not in the same position, and so would have paid little attention to the importance of this sort of thing, but it is fundamentally what is behind all forms of nationalism. The Israelis have just as much right to be a majority in their own land as the Poles or the Czechs.



Is it just me...or does this not quite make sense? Perhaps you can explain?

basically, in places elsewhere in the middle east, people have freedom of religion as long as they have the particualr religion of the majority. If not, they do not. The fact this makes no sense is for ME governments to explain. you are right, it makes no sense, but Arab policies have made no sense for quite a long time now.



I'm tempted to say it's largely irrelevant what you imagine....but I imagine that won't get the debate moving in the right direction...

Racism is when you see someone as superior because they are from a certain ethnicity or race.

yes and no. Racism is believing that an individual of one race is necessarily superior to those of another race. The problem is the correlation between racial or ethnic group and culture. Historically, people of the same race have generally lived among themselves, developing their own culture, their own values. THESE are the factors which can cause one group of people to be 'better' than others. Objectively speaking, cultures can be superior to and inferior to other cultrues on a whole bunch of axis. How they treat children, how they treat women, violent predispositions, values placed on justice, truth, morality, propensity to stable functional govenrment, inculcation of the arts, of sciences, of social sciences. All of these factors do not occur in a vacuum and are integrally related to the particular society's culture. This is part of the reason the western world made such huge advancements in science and the arts during the renaissance and the industrial revolution. not because the people changed but because the sulture of society changed.

All people can integrate into all cultures - there is nothing racil preventing this. But the inferiority of other cultures on these axis makes it proportionally more difficult for those immersed in these cultures to achieve these objectives. The rampant corruption in Arab world governance and ithe lack of civic institutions, a history of free and open debate, a history of keeping people largely illiterate and under the sway of landowners and the elite is the primary reason that the Arab world is not progressing as the Asian world has towards economic progress. The culture of violent supression of dissent makes it more difficult for the process to even start.

And as far as the Palestinains go, they have devolved their culture, their moral values, to the point where they are among the most depraved society on earth. Doesn't mean that they as individuals are in any way inferior, just their culture "stacks the deck" against them. Just like the Germans during the 30s and 40s.



Russians and Koreans think they're wonderful...So? they have a sense of nationalism... at worst an over-inflated ego. A Russian thinks he's better than a Korean because he happens to be Russian... he's a racist. Doesn't get much clearer.

again, no. If a Russian thinks he's better because he believes his culture is a superior one and living in a Russian envirnment with a russian identty produces more good for the population, he may be misinformed, but he is not a racist. if he believes Russians are ethnically superior and that Koreans are incapable of aspiring to the high cultural and moral values of the Russians, then he is a racist.

And I don't mean to assert that cultural homogeneity is what this leads to. Cultures can be uniquely distinct from each other without affectign their level of advancement. The Arab world may one day develop a distinct culture all its own which does not involve the religious subjugation of women, the oppression of minorities and efforts to stamp out their identities, govenrment corruption and brutality, and the rest. The cultural aspects I am talking about have nothing to do with food or the music people listen to or those types of innocuous cultural aspects, but things much deeper and much more fundamental to the proper working and development of socieites.



If you think you're a wonderful person, why would I even be bothered?
If you think you are better than someone else because of ethnicity, you're a racist. Zionism sees "Jewish people" as better than non-Jews, Zionism is racist.

this is not true. Zionists see that the rest of the world really doesn't give a damn about the fate of Jewish people living in their midst, and the only way to ensure self preservation, self protection and the continuation of a culture and society that for years was more advanced that surrounding ones in that it promoted universal education, better hygene, open dialogue and debate, and other things. basically it is a doctrine saying that only we can protect ourselves, and yes, we are worthy of protection, and therefore must assert national rights to enable us to protect ourselves the next time anti-semitism turns genocidal.

And remember, pre-war Germany's Jews were among the most integrated into the rest of society. Intermmarriage rates were 50%, Jews considered themselves German first and were proud to be so. But it took 3 years from the rise of Hitler to complete discrimination in law and open hostility towards Jews because they were Jews and 8 years to institutionalized govenrment sponsored genocide. And these people were denied anywhere to flee to, because the rest of the world was indifferent to their fate, while Israel was not a free Jewish state and was not permitted to absorb them.

That is where the 'never again' disclaimer enters into the zionist ethos. Never again will the Jews permit themselves to be completely at the mercy of people who view us as 'the other', because the risks to us are simply not worht it.

Has nothing at all to do with being better, only being.

[Canajew]

I have already heard the comparison to the Arabs expelling the Jews. My opinion may be irrelevant, but at least I have already said clearly what I believe: that was wrong. That should not have happened. Both the governments that were responsible and those who agreed with the action taken were wrong. It was a childish act of revenge. Many Arabs agree on this.

but whatever. What's done is done. israel spend huge amounts of resources integrating these Jews into its society, and thius affected its values, its culture and the rest. but it was gladly undertaken, because that was what Isarel was created to allow. instead of persecution and genocide, these poeple found a new home. By contrast the Arab world kept the Arabs living in Palestine who had not yet taken to calling themselves Palestinians in squalid camps, maintaining them as a distinct suffering mass in order to leverage their case against Israel, the home of the refugees expelled from Arab lands.

Interestingly enough, you know Arafat and his PA leadership continues to do this today, publically stating that they do not want to allow people living in "refugee camps" in the west bank and gaza, let alone in surrounding Arab states, vote in PA elections because this would undermine their assertion of the fictional "right of return". Such callousness should not be tolerated by the Arabs, but it is.



I await a clear statement regarding what you think of the fact that 93% of the land in a democratic country can only be used by someone who is a Jew.

Well, most of those lands can't really be used by anyone. Govenrment lands are like that. Govenrment owned national parks (more as a proportion of area tan anywhere alse in the ME) are open to everyone, as are places where government institutions are located, city parks, and the rest. As far as the rest, such laws are justified when the greater good necessitates it. the Supreme Court has said that the further along the Zionist project has come, the more secure Israel is a s a Jewish state, the leass restrictive it is permitted to be in this regard. So really, it is all about balance. Some people living there may not like it, but many in Quebec do not like their restricitve laws either. And both can do the same thing - leave.



As for what you (and Mediocrates) mentioned about the UN partition plan:


If this plan was supposedly so good for the Arabs, just why is it the Arabs rejected it? Out of pure hatred? Cutting of your nose to spite your face?
Oh, the plan was fair enough. Except for the part few people mention.

because they thought they could win and have it all.



The Jews were to be established as the ruling body.

of the Jewish part, yes.



Why? Because they had ruled this land 2000 years ago? No self-respecting people would accept this settlement without protest. Why should they?

but strangely enough, they did not protest when they were occupied by imperialist created Jordan or totalitarian egypt.

more later

[Oh Jerusalem]

Not quite a pinhead OJ, but close enough.
Lies.

The other part of the plan to "dilute the Arab population" in the Galilee and Negev, is to then coerce them into the "concentration townships" (lovely term), that are being built.
LOL! I wish we could build big houses like Israeli Arabs have. Many of my neigbors have 7-9 children and live in apartments with 3 bedrooms, 2.8x3.6 meters each.

And Arab towns are constantly expanding, just like any other town in Israel.

I suggest you visit here to get your facts straight. But maybe you're just not interested in facts.


Many, as I explained earlier, live in "unrecognised villages" , made that way through clever, if rather transparent, laws.
Yes. Laws that say if you build somewhere without a permit, it's illegal. And if you've done it for 30 years, that doesn't make it retroactively permitted.

So, you don't have laws like that on your books?

Consequently, many Palestinian Israelis find themselves living on state land, or agricultural land etc, and with demolition orders hanging over their heads.
I'm a Palestinian Israeli, I suppose. Are you a British Australian, by the way?

In the Negev alone there are around 30,000 homes slated for demolition.
Yep. They just keep building and building on public land, ignoring every law on the books in total disregard.

Admittedly, Israel's stupidity was not stopping this on day one.

But best of all, once the pesky Arabs have been "concentrated", there will be even more land for the ILA to administer.
Israelis all over the country are crammed into a minimal amount of land, thanks to the ILA. I have the same gripes. Israel has a very high population density all over, throughout the country. Tel Aviv is disgusting in many places.

Not just for Jews though, but for everyone to whom the Law of the Right of Return applies.
That's just Jews

What could be more democratic?
I do not worship democracy.

[MGB8]

Jehan,

The Arab rights to buy land in Israel is greater than the Jewish right to buy land in Arab nations. That is the basic fact. And that is fine, because each nation needs to protect its ethnic identity, although the Arab nation's identities are not threatened because of superior numbers.

As for the founding of Israel, Jews moved to a land, established a majority in certain areas, the great majority which they either purchased, or was not privately owned, but instead publically owned - much of the land was not very farmable or valuable in of itself.

The Arabs, had they accepted the partition, would have had a massive majority everywhere else in mandatory "Palestine" and thus there would be no issue. There would still have been a strong minority of Arabs in tiny Israel, but immigration of Jews would have clearly overwhelmed them.

BUT, the Arab nations chose to reject the partition, even though the Jews (via purchase or in many places via the British mandatory rights) owned the land and had a strong majority in the partition areas. The Arabs attempted genocide, and they lost.

DEAL WITH IT.

Stop crying and whining as the Arab peoples are famous for, at least according to Arab leaders. Go on with your lives. Live with the consequences of the actions your people chose. Arabs sound like Bratty children, who are not willing to sleep in the bed that they made.

The current situation is a result mostly of Arab rejection of Israel, not the other way around. Like you, Jehan, the key goal of the Arab nations is the destruction of Israel, with or without the genocide of the Jews, although many prefer with.

Meanwhile, it has NOTHING to do with the local Arabs there. We all know how "Palestinians" are treated in other Arab nations. We know that in 1949, Jordan, which could have established a Palestine, didn't, because, in reality, Jordan IS "Palestine." Of course, its funny that an Arab nation names itself after a ROMAN word.

This is about Jihad, about Arab pride, about the Dar al Salaam/Dar al Islam versus Dar al Harb....even in the secular conflicts it is this sort of pan-Islamic/pan-Arab IMPERIALIST NATIONALISM that drives the conflict. In that way, the Muslim Ummah is very similar to the Nazi nationalist movement.

Because, Israel is not "Arab-rein", but the Arab nations, including any new "Palestine" WILL BE "Judenrein" - ethnically cleansed. Because it is the Arab nations who are now the political and military agressors. Because ALL ISREALI policies have one goal - the survival of Israel, and none of the Arab states, nor you, Jehan, can live with that idea, your political ambition is destruction. The only peace you will accept is a peace of dead Jews.

To people like you, Jehan, I like to remind you....should there ever come a day when Israel is at the brink, even over the brink, of destruction - that same day Mecca, Medina, and every other major Islamic and Arab site - population wise, economic wise, or religious wise, will be destroyed...and unavailable for 10,000 years. If you are willing to make that trade, after all, Islam will survive, even without Mecca and Medina and the Kabba, or oil fields for that number, while the Jews will be, at least numerically, decimated - if you are willing to make that trade, Jehan, go ahead - keep to your myths and pan-Arab/pan-Islamic imperialist nationalism. Do it. Make your bed once again, but don't cry about it afterwords.

[MGB8]

Independent,

The Jewish homeland is not in Babylon, unless you make the claim that the HUMAN homeland, to a great extent, is in Babylon, or in certain parts of Africa (depending).

Many groups started in one place and then made a home in another.

Israel is the Jewish homeland for two reasons (from 2 different perspectives) - from the Jewish perspective, its the homeland for historical and religious reasons - our national home from the time of King David, Solomon, Moses, Jesus etc. etc. From the PRACTICAL perspective, Israel is the Jewish homeland because Jews bought land their, convinced the British to give them more national land there (before the British owned by the Turks), and move there, and established and build a home which has lasted decades longer than the US had lasted at the time of the war of 1812. The Arab attacked, attempting genocide, and Israel repelled them and took some more land, mainly as a defensive measure, as land means breathing room and buffer space against invading armies, although there are other reasons. And the Arabs, and seemingly you, still don't accept the right of Israel to exist. As Dennis Ross says, until this right is acknowledged, and it isn't, not even by Egypt or Jordan....there will always be war in the middle east, and Mecca and Medina and Jerusalem will always be on the brink of Apocalypse. Is that what you want, Independent (or Jehan, or Michael?)

Meanwhile, the Franks are not the original inhabitants of France, nor the Americans of the US...remember that only 200-250 years ago, it was mostly native American land - and that goes for much of South America as well. The 13 colonies didn't take up that much land.

[michael]

And Arab towns are constantly expanding, just like any other town in Israel.
I suggest you visit here to get your facts straight. But maybe you're just not interested in facts.
Expanding yes, but can Palestinian Israelis get the legal approval to expand - no.





Yes. Laws that say if you build somewhere without a permit, it's illegal. And if you've done it for 30 years, that doesn't make it retroactively permitted.
As I explained earlier some laws were retrospective and others like the 1965 Building and Construction Law made many already existing villages and neigbourhoods "illegal" by definition. Very convenient, and those blind to justice can then claim 'but that's the law'.






So, you don't have laws like that on your books?
Like that? Thankfully not.






Yep. They just keep building and building on public land, ignoring every law on the books in total disregard.
Public land conveniently defined as such through laws that include old British military ordinances, despite the fact that in many cases people had title to the land or had lived there since pre-state times.






That's just Jews
On the Law of Return, I was kidding obviously (at least I thought it obvious).

[MGB8]

There's plenty of legal Arab contruction in Israel, Michael. You are, once again, exagerating. Blind to the forrest by focusing on the glades.

Are things perfect? No. Are there problems? Absolutely. Are there reasons for these problems, and consequences to one action or another? Yes. Is the survival of Israel as THE Jewish state more important than some people's individual rights, creating a balancing situation - absolutely!

Can a person from a Christian country, a member of a huge group that has no existential threats nor any idea of what its really like to be a constant minority, not t mention surrounded by water, adequately analogize their situation to Israel's? Not at all.

[Independent]

The people you talk about are not Arabs, they don't talk Arabic but a language called: "Berber" These people are the indiginous people of the north Africa, pushed by the Arabs into the Sahara desert more then a thousand years ago. Algierian ARabs, however, speak Arabic, carry Arab names and look Arabs, and consider themselves as Arabs, eat Arab food and listen to Arab music. Different from the Berberians you talk about.
Most North Africans who consider themselves Arab also have significant Berber ancestry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber

With regards the first factor, Algerians may have more trouble communicating with Saudis than they would with Tunisians, as Algeria is much closer to Tunisia than it is to Saudi Arabia. With regards the second factor, the average Arab throughout the Arab world have no problem whatsoever understanding the Egyptian dialect as they are all exposed to it via TV programs, films and documentaries.
http://www.aramedia.com/efaq.htm#f9

Differences between Arabs, eh?

Spoken Arabic naturally varies from country to country, but classical Arabic, the language of the Koran, has remained largely unchanged since the 7th century. It has served as a great unifying force in the development and standardization of the language. When educated Arabs from different countries meet, they generally converse in classical Arabic. On the southern coast of the Arabian Peninsula the people speak a number of dialects known collectively as South Arabic, but these differ so greatly from the Arabic of the north that South Arabic is often considered a separate language.
http://www.worldlanguage.com/Indonesian/Languages/Arabic.htm

Hmmm.... many differences.... It's no wonder that Palestinian Arabs are indeed different from other Arabs.


We Jews proved we are ready to die for our land, even more then the Arabs. You mean like suicide bombers?

[Independent]

The Jewish homeland is not in Babylon, unless you make the claim that the HUMAN homeland, to a great extent, is in Babylon, or in certain parts of Africa (depending). This means that Israel is the homeland of many Palestinians, not Jordan for the same reason that Babylon is not the homeland of Jews. I totally agree with this understanding. Cultures mix and move, adapting to new surroundings.

Many groups started in one place and then made a home in another. Exactly. That's what I've been trying to say.

Israel is the Jewish homeland for two reasons (from 2 different perspectives) While I understand your point of view and agree taht it makes a lot of sense from a Jewish perspective, I still find that Jews have their reasons and Palestinians have their reasons. Now, somehow, both groups just need to learn how to live together.

Meanwhile, the Franks are not the original inhabitants of France, nor the Americans of the US...remember that only 200-250 years ago, it was mostly native American land - and that goes for much of South America as well. The 13 colonies didn't take up that much land. Exactly. That's why many Palestinians are the natives of Israel.

[Mediocrates]

Many countries have so called laws of ingathering in one form or another. For example in Greece if you can demonstrate that either parent is/was a Greek then you can apply for immediate citizenship. I recall that the Greek Olympic Baseball team sought out American players like this and then had to appeal to the Greek government to ammend the law to permit anyone with one Greek grandparent the same rights. But seemingly only the Jews are singled out for this nefarious practice.

[Mediocrates]

By the way one does not actually have to demonstrate anything to the UN in order to apply for Palestinian designation.

[Gilgamesh]

To our business, we are not talking Algierians and Maroccans, that even your own sources prove to be Arabs (to some degree). We compare the "Palestinians" to Egyptions, Syrians and Iraqi. The fact of the matter is, that the "Palestinians" are Syrians Jordenians or Egyptions in any imgationable aspect, and this is what counts.

BTW, since you like the Cnaanite concept, I'll remind you that Cnaanites used to live on regions of modern Lebanon, modern Syria and Jorden. So the "Palestinians" are as much "Cnaanites" as the Syrian Arabs.


You mean like suicide bombers?

Enlight us please, what land do the Arabs think they defend by blowing up Israeli children? What achivement these suicide bombers have accomplished by now, using these suicide bombings?

And no, we Jews are not suicidal when we fight. We fight hard, but never plan to die in advance, (unless there is no other choise, and one has to choose one death over another).

When we fight, we do not target enemy civilians. (unless you consider the terrorists as civilians).

[Independent]

Many countries have so called laws of ingathering in one form or another. For example in Greece if you can demonstrate that either parent is/was a Greek then you can apply for immediate citizenship. I recall that the Greek Olympic Baseball team sought out American players like this and then had to appeal to the Greek government to ammend the law to permit anyone with one Greek grandparent the same rights. But seemingly only the Jews are singled out for this nefarious practice.

The problem here is that both Jews and Palestinians are the natives of Israel while Jews are treated better than Palestinians, this is the fact that is "singled out". If Jews and Palestinians are treated equally in their country, then no one would have anything to complain about.

[Mediocrates]

The problem here is that both Jews and Palestinians are the natives of Israel while Jews are treated better than Palestinians, this is the fact that is "singled out". If Jews and Palestinians are treated equally in their country, then no one would have anything to complain about.


Which is kind of a stupid thing to say because you really don't know how for example Greeks feel about these new Greeks, do you? And if you chose to return to the West Bank one can safely assume that a Palestinian government would treat you somewhat better than they would me and you would tie yourself in tortured knots defending that, wouldn't you.

[Independent]

Enlight us please, what land do the Arabs think they defend by blowing up Israeli children? What achivement these suicide bombers have accomplished by now, using these suicide bombings?

And no, we Jews are not suicidal when we fight. We fight hard, but never plan to die in advance, (unless there is no other choise, and one has to choose one death over another).

Jews will do anything to defend their homeland, just like Palestinians. There is really no difference in this area if one gets down to the bottom of things.


When we fight, we do not target enemy civilians. (unless you consider the terrorists as civilians).

Historically, this is not true. Certainly, if Jews were in the same situation as Palestinians, then some would do what some Palestinians do, just like how it has been done and how some attempt to do such.

[Independent]

And if you chose to return to the West Bank one can safely assume that a Palestinian government would treat you somewhat better than they would me and you would tie yourself in tortured knots defending that, wouldn't you.

Once Israelis allow Palestine to exist, then I'll criticize it if such will still be necessary then.

[Gilgamesh]

Most North Africans who consider themselves Arab also have significant Berber ancestry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber

Differences between Arabs, eh?

Hmmm.... many differences.... It's no wonder that Palestinian Arabs are indeed different from other Arabs.

Bravo!!! You proved the bleeding obvious, BERBER are NOT Arabs.... :rolleyes:

Palestinians are indeed some different from the Algierian BERBER. And even from the Algierian Arabs, both speak Arabic, different accents. (although the Arab elite of country is fully Arab, and don't speak the native accents). It is still not a meaningul difference. If this is the only difference you could come up with, you are indeed in troubles proveing the national uniquness of the Palestinains.

The point, what you failed to prove, is that the Palestinians have UNIQUE national qualities, different from the EGYPTIONS, SYRIANS and JORDENIANS. This is the main point.

You can't debunk my original idea by making obvious comparison. Like saying that Germans are not Chinees. I was not talking ever about the Berber, you mentioned them out of ignorance! I was talking about the ARABS living the NORTH AFRICA who are identicle in any feature to the PALESTINIANS.

One more thing, there are quite many Palestinian Arabs who speak in the TUNISIAN accent.

Now, work on it, independent.

[Mediocrates]

You mean like suicide bombers?


How cute. The postmodern western pro terrorist world view in a nutshell. You think that you can shame people into letting you kill them. But see here's the rub. I understand terrorism perfectly. I completely understand why they do what they do and to a great deal, how they do it. I am not interested in whether their supporters, like you, think I am fair. I simply don't care because in the end I am perfectly, perfectly willing to use savage methods against you in kind.

You think you will achieve victory by pretending that murder is moral and genocide is just. It is not, it is just ugly and dirty and that is what we will eventually use against you to destroy your ability to hurt us. I am perfectly willing to be indifferent to your support of bombing busloads of Haredi children and I will never listen to your excuse or wonder if somehow you can be humanized. You and other posters like michael want to jump through hoops in the faint hope that you can embarass the victims into no longer defending themselves. It's laughable really the proponents of gangland indiscriminate violence whining that their opponent won't fight a 'moral' blood-free war.

But in the end you will kill until you are rendered unable to murder. You will fight until your physical, moral, financial, political infrastructure to fight is erased. If that takes 'collateral', if that takes 'unfair', if that takes brutal savage ruthless singlemindedness then that's what it will take.

Go ahead, call me a 'terrorist'. I don't care, we'll still kill you.

[Independent]

The point, what you failed to prove, is that the Palestinians have UNIQUE national qualities, different from the EGYPTIONS, SYRIANS and JORDENIANS. This is the main point.

Assuming that you are correct, why should someone who's home is in Bethlehem move to Cairo simply because Zionists want to move to Bethlehem? This doesn't make sense. I mean, if Zionists want to move to Bethlehem, then they need to live in equal conditions with the other people who live there, recognizing that the land is equally important to both people.

Especially considering that Paletinians are believed to be related to Canaans.

The genetic profile of Palestinians has, for the first time, been studied by using human leukocyte antigen (HLA) gene variability and haplotypes. The comparison with other Mediterranean populations by using neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses reveal that Palestinians are genetically very close to Jews and other Middle East populations, including Turks (Anatolians), Lebanese, Egyptians, Armenians, and Iranians. Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian, and Anatolian peoples in ancient times. Thus, Palestinian-Jewish rivalry is based in cultural and religious, but not in genetic, differences. The relatively close relatedness of both Jews and Palestinians to western Mediterranean populations reflects the continuous circum-Mediterranean cultural and gene flow that have occurred in prehistoric and historic times. This flow overtly contradicts the demic diffusion model of western Mediterranean populations substitution by agriculturalists coming from the Middle East in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Downloads/Downloads_GetFile.aspx?id=879

[Mediocrates]

Ever the racist nitpicker.

[Independent]

edited i misunderstood the content I was replying too.

[MGB8]

Independent,

There is a big difference between Jews and Palestinian Arabs in regard to their relationship to the land of Israel.

At one point in time, there WAS a nation of Israel (and a nation of Judea). There has NEVER, EVER been a nation of Palestine. There have been Arabs who lived in the land the Romans named Palestine under the rule of some group (Egyptian/Mamaluk or Ottoman or Kurdish etc.), but never an actual nation or ethnic group. This is the same as Jews who lived in Arab nations.

It is not their NATIONAL homeland, even if they were born there.

Independent, you don't seem to be able to distinguish between groups, nations, and individuals, but you have to learn to. Just because a person is born, or even has a long time land ownership, in a certain country, does not grant him a right to SOVEREIGNTY over that peice of land, even if it might guarantee certain land rights - and conflicts generally trump land rights.

Meanwhile, the things that you ignore, Independent, including the consistent Arab inability to accept the right of Israel to exists as a Jewish state, their continued attempted genocide against the Jews, the responsibility of the Arab nations and Arab ethnic "nation" to accept the consequence of their decisions to go to war against the Jews, or just the existential threat to Jews and Israel that the present situation provides....THAT says A LOT about you, independent. Of course, the issue is WHY you gloss over these things. No other nation has its right to exist challenged...why Israel? And you are challenging that right, Independent.

Meanwhile, your moral equivalence of targetting women, children and the elderly versus the most pinpoint targetting possible of combatants who target those children...that is a moral abomination - YOU are a moral abomination.

[MGB8]

A "Canaanite" is a biblical term for residents of an area at the time. They don't exist. Jews and Palestinians are related - cousins. I'm sure there is "Canaanite" blood in both. People who make this argument, that Palestinian Arabs, or Judean Arabs, if you want to use the original Roman names, come from Canaanites is first ignoring the fact that they are ARAB, who immigrated from ARABIA, with the conquests of the Caliphates...the Canaanites were destroyed before the existance of Judea, while the Arabs claim to descend from Ismael, son of Abraham, who was not a Canaanite (he left for Arabia)...and second, they do this as a political ploy to advance certain jew hating goals, which apparently you share, Independent. You may be a polite Jew Hater, but you cerainly seem to be a Jew Hater, unless you prove otherwise, because you sure are making that case right now. Independent my @ss.

As for the idea of "why should Pal Arabs move because "Zionists" want them to" - why should a Jewish person who lives, maybe was born in, maybe was many generations in (ie. in Hebron) in the WB move because some Arab wants them to? There, of course, are reasons.

But, while some people talk about transfer as a terrible, but only possible, solution (not murder, mind you, but compensated emmigration), that is the minority.

The difference between Sharon and Barak is about 10% of the WB. RABIN would have given less than either, given his statements.

[Batman]

OH, EXCUSE ME, VIA INDEPENDENT....UHM INDEPENDENT CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE ARTICLE WAS LATER ON REJECTED AND DISMISSED AS FUC==ICTION AND BIASED PROPAGANDA TOOL FOR THE PLO!

Assuming that you are correct, why should someone who's home is in Bethlehem move to Cairo simply because Zionists want to move to Bethlehem? This doesn't make sense. I mean, if Zionists want to move to Bethlehem, then they need to live in equal conditions with the other people who live there, recognizing that the land is equally important to both people.

Especially considering that Paletinians are believed to be related to Canaans.

The genetic profile of Palestinians has, for the first time, been studied by using human leukocyte antigen (HLA) gene variability and haplotypes. The comparison with other Mediterranean populations by using neighbor-joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses reveal that Palestinians are genetically very close to Jews and other Middle East populations, including Turks (Anatolians), Lebanese, Egyptians, Armenians, and Iranians. Archaeologic and genetic data support that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian, and Anatolian peoples in ancient times. Thus, Palestinian-Jewish rivalry is based in cultural and religious, but not in genetic, differences. The relatively close relatedness of both Jews and Palestinians to western Mediterranean populations reflects the continuous circum-Mediterranean cultural and gene flow that have occurred in prehistoric and historic times. This flow overtly contradicts the demic diffusion model of western Mediterranean populations substitution by agriculturalists coming from the Middle East in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Downloads/Downloads_GetFile.aspx?id=879

NO SUCH THING!
FROM:http://www.sicmuse.com/weblog/archives/000025.htm
The [ABOVE] article was removed because the author decided to mix subjective politics with objective scientific research
"The journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ...
........
Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday November 25, 2001
The Observer "

"Jordan is Palestine. Palestine is Jordan. (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=6693)
This is the royal decree and sentiments of two of the kings of Jordan.

"Palestine and Jordan are one..." said King Abdullah in 1948.

"The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan," said King Hussein of Jordan, in 1981.

Let's closely examine the facts of history from the Arab perspective, rather than the Jewish one, regarding Jordan and Palestine.

"Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine; there is only one land, with one history and one and the same fate," Prince Hassan of the Jordanian National Assembly was quoted as saying on February 2, 1970.

Accordingly, Abdul Hamid Sharif, Prime Minister of Jordan declared, in 1980, "The Palestinians and Jordanians do not belong to different nationalities. They hold the same Jordanian passports, are Arabs and have the same Jordanian culture."

In other words, Jordan is Palestine. Arab Palestine. There is absolutely no difference between Jordan and Palestine, nor between Jordanians and Palestinians (all actually Arabs).

This fact is also confirmed by other Arabs, Jordanians and 'Palestinans' who were either rulers or scholars.

"There should be a kind of linkage because Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people," according to Farouk Kaddoumi, then head of the PLO Political Department, who gave the statement to Newsweek on March 14, 1977. Distinguished Arab-American Princeton University historian Philip Hitti testified before the Anglo-American Committee,

"There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history."
According to Arab-American columnist Joseph Farah,
"Palestine has never existed - before or since - as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire, and briefly by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland. There was no language known as Palestinian. There was no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a Palestine governed by the Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc."
These authoritative, honest statements are by Arabs, Jordanians and Palestinians, and absolutely must be taken at their face value and word.
All right, so you're not quite into quotes. How about these tasteful tidbits of historical facts?

* Jews, not Arabs, have lived continuously in the ancient Biblical Promised Land of Israel, especially Judea and Samaria, for 3,700 years. This land was given as a gift by G-d to the Children of Israel (Hebrews, Israelites, Jews) and is so stated in all of the three monotheistic religions' holy books - Old Testament, New Testament and Quran. Faithful followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all believe in the same one G-d and therefore must believe the word of their G-d. G-d does not make and break his promises. There is a very valuable lesson to be learned by all his children and faithful followers.
* The current queen of Jordan is an Arab 'Palestinian'.

* Approximately half of Jordan's prime ministers since 1950 have been Arab 'Palestinians'.

* More than 2/3 of the Jordanian people are Arab 'Palestinians'.

* The majority of citizens residing in the capital of Amman are Arab 'Palestinians'.

* Arab 'Palestinians' constitute not less than one half of the members of the armed forces, according to the late King Hussein, as broadcast on Amman Radio February 3, 1973.

* The majority of other security forces are Arab 'Palestinians'.

* Jordan occupies 77% of the original Palestine Mandate (originally promised to the Jewish people). The population density of Jordan is less than 61 people per square mile leaving lots of room to absorb many more of their brethren and cousins.

Want to delve even deeper? Let's explore further. We all need to refresh our memory, as 'short-term syndrome' has taken over. Now for a little history lesson, for those who do not recall the reality of the past.
The British tried to placate the Arabs by giving them part of the land designated under the Palestine Mandate (originally allocated under the Balfour Declaration for the establishment of a Jewish homeland). Britain created an entirely new province by severing 77% of historic Palestine (and an additional 3% was also allocated to Syria), on the eastern bank of the Jordan River (some 35,000 square miles), and establishing the state of Transjordan.

Faisal, who had been King of Syria, was deposed by the French, so the British offered him the throne of Iraq, which he accepted. Faisal's brother Abdullah was installed as the new nation of Transjordan's ruler on April 1, 1921 (April Fool's Day), thereby completing the appeasement of Arab rulers.

During the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, in which nine Arab nations attacked Israel, they took control of the ancient biblical territories of Judea and Samaria (Jewish territory, which was "occupied" for nineteen years until 1967, when it was liberated and reconquered in yet another defensive war).

On April 24, 1950, Abdullah formally merged all of Arab-held Palestine with Transjordan and granted citizenship to all Arab residents and settlers (the vast majority of whom arrived the 1920s for economic reasons).

The Hashemite Kingdom was no longer only across the river so the prefix "Trans" (meaning "across") was dropped, and henceforth, the land became known as Jordan; i.e., Arab Palestine.

Remember, Jordan is Palestine. Arab Palestine.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to King Abdullah, King Hussein, Prince Hassan, Farouk Kaddoumi, Phillip Hitti and Joseph Farah, Arab, Jordanian and Palestinian authorities on the subject; and listen to the historical facts, as well. "

FROM:Jordan is Palestine (http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/janfeb04/jordan.html)


The Great Arab Refugee Scam (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=6672)

[Independent]

OH, EXCUSE ME, VIA INDEPENDENT....UHM INDEPENDENT CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THE ARTICLE WAS LATER ON REJECTED AND DISMISSED AS FUC==ICTION AND BIASED PROPAGANDA TOOL FOR THE PLO!

Batman, 90% of the research was based on computer data and it was not a political perspective. The criticism of the article was more political and less scientific. You can read more here, from a Jewish source.

Palestinian Gene Study Breeds Scandal
http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.11.30/news7.html

There are many other similar studies performed in Israel and the US:


Experts find genetic Jewish-Arab link
JPost, Judy Siegel , November 6 2000
http://philologos.org/bprdigests/2000/nov/110600.htm

Jews Are The Genetic Brothers Of Palestinians, Syrians, And Lebanese
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm

Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769


Seriously, there is nothing wrong with being closely related to Palestinians and there is nothing wrong with accepting the fact that many Palestinians live in Israel because that is their homeland, not Jordan.

[Independent]

Independent, you don't seem to be able to distinguish between groups, nations, and individuals, but you have to learn to. Just because a person is born, or even has a long time land ownership, in a certain country, does not grant him a right to SOVEREIGNTY over that peice of land, even if it might guarantee certain land rights - and conflicts generally trump land rights. Agreed. However, these people will tell you that the place where they live is indeed their homeland. They love the place, they belong to it and they don't want to live anywhere else. That's why immigrants often apply for citizenship to be able to vote for the future of their new homeland.


Meanwhile, the things that you ignore, Independent, including the consistent Arab inability to accept the right of Israel to exists as a Jewish state, I ignore such ideas because the many peace efforts demonstrate that such ideas are obsolete according to the majority.

Of course, the issue is WHY you gloss over these things. No other nation has its right to exist challenged...why Israel? And you are challenging that right, Independent.
This is a very incorrect assumption, just how the same assumption of other people is incorrect and it has nothing to do with reality. My position is simple. Either all Jews and Palestinians must live together under equal conditions in Israel or there must be a two-state solution along the green line where people are citizens of the countries that they live in.


Meanwhile, your moral equivalence of targetting women, children and the elderly versus the most pinpoint targetting possible of combatants who target those children...that is a moral abomination - YOU are a moral abomination. This is another incorrect assumption and a false accusation. My position is simply that self-defense of an occupation is unnecessary when the occupation does not exist and that both some Jews and some Palestinians will use the same or very similar methods that are available to them to defend their homeland.

[Canajew]

Batman, 90% of the research was based on computer data and it was not a political perspective. The criticism of the article was more political and less scientific. You can read more here, from a Jewish source.

Palestinian Gene Study Breeds Scandal
http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.11.30/news7.html

There are many other similar studies performed in Israel and the US:


Experts find genetic Jewish-Arab link
JPost, Judy Siegel , November 6 2000
http://philologos.org/bprdigests/2000/nov/110600.htm

Jews Are The Genetic Brothers Of Palestinians, Syrians, And Lebanese
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm

Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769


Seriously, there is nothing wrong with being closely related to Palestinians and there is nothing wrong with accepting the fact that many Palestinians live in Israel because that is their homeland, not Jordan.
the study never said Jordanians were not the same as Palestiniasn, did it?

[MGB8]

No, it did not, because they are the same.

Independent misses the concept of homeland, which is a POLITICAL construct, entirely.

For example, following "independent's" logic, if a bunch of Irishmen or Irish-Americans lived in the US in a certain area for a couple hundred years, became a strong majority in that area, and then after a while decided to secede - to become their own nation, according to independents logic, this group would have to be allowed its own state.

The South should have been allowed to secede in the Civil War.

The Indian nations should all have separate, completely independent nations from the US (and Mexico, and Chile, and Brazil). The aboriginese in Australia. Etc. etc. etc.

Back to the Irishmen example, the thing is, that there is no need for a new Irish homeland, because they already have an ETHNIC homeland - Ireland. The Palestinian arabs already have MANY ethnic homelands, depending on the Arab. Because THEY ARE ARABS. Of course they are related to Jews - Jews and Arabs developed as ethnicities for thousands of years right next to each other, intermingling. Nu? That's pretty irrelevent in a political and ethnic sense.

Independent - there are two issues here, and really only two:

1. How much land, if any, can Israel afford to give up?
2. Can Israel control an Arab population that is not its citizens?

BEFORE Oslo, Israel actually had a pretty good plan, though frought with future peril, to both protect their security but make sure that the Arabs had certain rights. The plan was similar to Benny Elon's plan - the non-Israeli Arabs would have Jordanian and Egyptian citizenship and have a lot of political involvement from their home nation, but be allowed to continue to live in the WB and Gaza in an autonomy partially governed by Israel, partially by the Arab state, and mostly by the local Arabs. Now, the danger is that they'd become a majority between the River and the Sea and challenge Israel's right to exist, but that's another matter...

Now, the big difference between Sharon and Barak is about 10% of the WB. The hard right does not want to give up any of the land, some of them just because they are "under fire" and don't want to give up land for nothing, others for security or religious reasons. I personally don't agree with them, but they are entitled to their opinions, and have logic behind them. I personally believe that transfer is not politically possible without endangering Israel much more than a Pal-Arab state in the WB would, especially if there were specific security provisions about border controls and things like that, at least in the shorter term, until we could show whether or not the Arabs could abandon the hope of their destruction of Israel.

People like you, independent, fuel that hope, by deligitimizing Israel. As such, you are helping perpetuate the conflict, and very possibly promoting at least attempted genocide. I hope you realize this.

[MGB8]

As for your response to my other post...its pure BS.

Peace efforts. Have you read Dennis Ross's book?

And yet you still make a moral equivalence between war and terrorism, which is morally putrid.

I don't "mind" attacks on soldiers and tanks and even checkpoints - that is guerilla warfare. That is VERY different from suicide bombers. They are NOT the same, one crosses a bright red line. And your inability to see this - well, I hope you pray that you don't get to see the difference personally. Meanwhile, when the Pal Arabs committ acts of war, they should not complain when the other side wars back.,

As for the goal of the destruction of Israel being "obsolete" - LMAO. "IGNORANT" would be a much better moniker for you, independent. This board is full of discussion and evidence, from the horses mouth, of the desire for the destruction of Israel. It is still standard Arab fair - only two Arab nations recognize Israel as existing (in contravention to the UN charter), and it is arguable that these two nations still don't accept the RIGHT of Israel to exist - and you, independent, have bought their logic hook line and sinker.

[michael]

Independent - there are two issues here, and really only two:

1. How much land, if any, can Israel afford to give up?
2. Can Israel control an Arab population that is not its citizens?


1. Quite a bit. The more interesting question is how much does it want to give up. If you ask the Likudniks, it's about zero. Sharon, being slightly pragmatic, realizes that giving up a small part in exchange for keeping the rest is a fantastic result for Israel. Whether he can convince the fanatics is another matter. For the messianic ideologues, this idea is apostasy.

2. Clearly not, but that's not about to stop them trying.

Though this does raise an interesting issue, one that is slowly emerging in the territories. If you accept that the 2 state solution is dead, the natural question is - what comes next. Sharon et al clearly believe that the Palestinians will live happily in their cantons under the benign gaze of the IDF, while Arafat assumes the role of co-ordinator of street sweeping and garbage collection.
There is a very small but growing opinion amongst Palestinians that this is indeed the case - that there is no realistic hope for a 2 state solution and that the 'struggle' for a Palestinian state has been comprehensively lost.
What they suggest, is that Palestinians should demand that Israel formally annex the Strip and WB and that a 'one-man one-vote' struggle for recognition of their political and civil rights, as equals in a state of all its' citizens, should be undertaken.

[Oh Jerusalem]

As for the goal of the destruction of Israel being "obsolete" - LMAO. "IGNORANT" would be a much better moniker for you, independent. This board is full of discussion and evidence, from the horses mouth, of the desire for the destruction of Israel.
Specifically, the Trojan Horse (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php&t=2685).

[Gilgamesh]

Assuming that you are correct, why should someone who's home is in Bethlehem move to Cairo simply because Zionists want to move to Bethlehem? You either forgetful or you don't read my posts. Arabs should be offered money and compansations for the property they hold today. And Jews should be allowed to move BACK to live into Bethlechem. The probelm and racial hostility exists among the Arabs, not Jews who simply responding for existing Arab's hate for us.


I mean, if Zionists want to move to Bethlehem, then they need to live in equal conditions with the other people who live there, recognizing that the land is equally important to both people.

Jews had been Lynched serveral times by Arabs, (http://www.masada2000.org/ramallah.html) for entering by mistake into Arab population centers. If instead of Jews, they were African American... the world would beheaved totally different toward such atorcity. The Jews were not killed by "militants" by ordinary day to day Arabs. This link is a single demonstration of the Arab militancy spreaded across all their society, and not forcus among few.

It is Arabs who are racists and pervent peaceful co-existance. There is no imagionable reason, that Arab would "want peace" and on the other hand, cannot tollerate Jewish neighbors.


Especially considering that Paletinians are believed to be related to Canaans. According to your weird source, so are Jews... we are all members of the same race, so once again, this last wierd argument of yours is becoming irrelevent from yet another aspect.

Arabs are not "more Cnaanite" then Jews. For what ever this means...



The genetic profile of Palestinians has, for the first time, been studied by using human .... reveal that Palestinians are genetically very close to Jews and other Middle East populations, ... that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient Canaanites, Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Downloads/Downloads_GetFile.aspx?id=879

Yet another demonstration of the existance of the Semite race, modern Jews Arabs and Persians belong too.

[Batman]

Batman, 90% of the research was based on computer data and it was not a political perspective. The criticism of the article was more political and less scientific. You can read more here, from a Jewish source.

Palestinian Gene Study Breeds Scandal
http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.11.30/news7.html

There are many other similar studies performed in Israel and the US:


Experts find genetic Jewish-Arab link
JPost, Judy Siegel , November 6 2000
http://philologos.org/bprdigests/2000/nov/110600.htm

Jews Are The Genetic Brothers Of Palestinians, Syrians, And Lebanese
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm

Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769


Seriously, there is nothing wrong with being closely related to Palestinians and there is nothing wrong with accepting the fact that many Palestinians live in Israel because that is their homeland, not Jordan.
NO YOU D.m.B A....S, ! It's the Arabs stupid who mind any link with Jews!

Besides while you pretend to be so humane you have continued to ignore the facts for the sake of pushing your preconceived JUDGEMENTAL anti Jewish racist propaganda. eVEN THE ARABS ADMIT: JORDAN IS PALESTINE, EVEN THE KORAN STATES: ISRAEL BELOOOOOOOONG TO THE JEWISH PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

[MGB8]

Michael,

The last post you wrote was, in your tradition, at best factually innacurate and misleading.

The difference between Sharon's eventual map and Barak and Clinton's maps, which never offered "Cantons", is about 10% of the WB. That means that Israel giving back a "small part" - its 85%, with some more land from Israel being given to the Pal's in return. And for what concession on the Arab part? The so called "Oslo" concession of the existence of Israel? There is no such concession, that's a bad joke. If so, then the Israeli concession is the mere recognition of the PLO, and no transfer to Jordan, Syria, etc.

Now, there is some legitimate Pal Arab complaint that they wouldn't immediately control the Borders with Jordan and Egypt, Israel (or an international force, or both) would man that border on an interim basis, until the Pal Arabs proved that they were not going to continue attacking Israel.

Meanwhile, the Pal Arabs GET A COUNTRY, which they don't, and have never had. They get LAND, which they don't, and have NEVER had. They get the ETHNIC CLEANSING of Jews from newly acquired land. They get international protection. They get many things.

Meanwhile, the issue on land retention is much about security considerations - shoulder rockets at Ben Gurion, tank movements north and south, strategic depth....and your refusal to consider these things that you know are legitimate considerations...well, it shows us all exactly what you are.

The things is, Michael, that you want the destruction of Israel, and the corresponding genocide of the Jews. May the fate you wish on others come to pass on you and your family...sort of the golden rule in reverse.

[Gilgamesh]

Jews will do anything to defend their homeland, just like Palestinians. There is really no difference in this area if one gets down to the bottom of things. When Jews fought the British crimminal occupation... not one single bomb targeted British civilians in London or other places. Only military and british goverment were targeted.

Prove me wrong, if you can, or accept that truth. Jews are not fighting like the Arabs.

Again, Arabs bombers target civilians. According to this logic, Israel has a moral right to carpet bomb Arab cities, the same way Churchil leveled German cities in responce for the blitz, Nazi German bombings of civilian London. Totall war is something very defined. Arabs fight us totally, but Israel fight in a highly limited method.


Historically, this is not true. Certainly, if Jews were in the same situation as Palestinians, then some would do what some Palestinians do, just like how it has been done and how some attempt to do such. Private, crimminal Jews... maybe. There is no Jewish organization who target Arabs, even if the press tried to make such organization up on several incidents.

Small deranged crimminals are not terror organization, and there is no orginized Jewish terrorism against Arabs, organization which targets Arab civilians. Prove me wrong if you can, or accept that fact as correct.

If the sandle was on the other shoe... rest assure that Arabs would carpet bomb our civilians, even for legitiamte guerrila warfare, attacking legitimate Arab targets. Remember how Arabs quell armed rebelions on their side, against other Arabs. Let alone Jews...

[Mediocrates]

State sanctioned Arab brutality seems limited only by means not morals. Far far far more arab/muslim on arab/muslim violence has claimed for more lives that the Palestinian Oslo war. And we want to say as civilized people that we simply don't understand why that happens but if we were them it would be clear...but that's a cop out isn't it? Millions with an "S" arabs/muslims (& in this I mean muslim as a cultural identifier) have killed one another since the end of the colonial empires 1945-62. I think you'd be hard pressed to say that in all those cases or even most of them they were a result of 'oppression'.

[Independent]

Michael,

The last post you wrote was, in your tradition, at best factually innacurate and misleading.

The difference between Sharon's eventual map and Barak and Clinton's maps, which never offered "Cantons", is about 10% of the WB. That means that Israel giving back a "small part" - its 85%, with some more land from Israel being given to the Pal's in return. This does not seem realistic. The illegal settlements are spread all over the West Bank. If only 4 settlements are removed, that still means that Palestinians will be placed into tiny reservations surrounded by Israeli territory. The only way that Palestinians could possibly accept this is with a one state solution.



And for what concession on the Arab part? The so called "Oslo" concession of the existence of Israel? There is no such concession, that's a bad joke. If so, then the Israeli concession is the mere recognition of the PLO, and no transfer to Jordan, Syria, etc. Most Palestinians and surrounding Arab states will, without question, accept Israel if Israel accepted the green line. But, Michele is correct that it is too late for Israelis to accept the green line and thus Israelis have placed themselves into this situation of increased conflict.


Meanwhile, the Pal Arabs GET A COUNTRY, which they don't, and have never had. They get LAND, which they don't, and have NEVER had. They get the ETHNIC CLEANSING of Jews from newly acquired land. They get international protection. They get many things. The problem is, as it has always been, is that no one listens to Palestinians. Things are simply forced upon them against their will. Thus, of course, from a historical perspective, the conflict will continue.

[Sword of Gideon]

Hey independent,
since you are so obsessed with genetics and race this book will be right up your alley

My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding by David Duke
http://shop.davidduke.com/cgi-bin/dukecat/00088.html

[MGB8]

Only 4 settlements is not the final outcome, its part of a limited disengagement, a beginning of the process, not the end. Meanwhile, if Israel isn't kicking out all of its Arabs, why should the Arabs demand that the Jews be kicked out. Why do you believe in ethnic cleansing of Jews, but not Arabs?

Again, you really should spend the time learning about the subject before you profess an opinion. Had you come into this forum and asked real, as opposed to loaded, questions, and pretended to know more than you did, you might not have encoungetered the same amount of hostility. As long as you don't deliberately splice and mislead like Michael does.

Meanwhile, a good place to start is the book by Dennis Ross, which shows the Maps of that were offered at camp david, among other things.


Oh, and meanwhile, what you say about the neighboring Arabs states - you say this opinion with NO FOUNDATION, no evidence, no nothing...and in contravention of what the Arab say in Arabic and in the history of their actions. Again, even the countries with which Israel has peace agreements do not recognize Israel's RIGHT to exist, only that it does exist and that they are not at war...and as long as that right to exist is denied, through the media, through the mosques, through financing or harboring terror... there will never be long term peace in the middle east - only the continuing threat of apocalypse.

But of course, you with your wealth of knowledge know better, right? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Independent]

Only 4 settlements is not the final outcome, its part of a limited disengagement, a beginning of the process, not the end. Meanwhile, if Israel isn't kicking out all of its Arabs, why should the Arabs demand that the Jews be kicked out. This sounds like another promise that will never become true, just like many others. There is no way in the world that all of these settlements would be removed.


Why do you believe in ethnic cleansing of Jews, but not Arabs? Personally, I believe that the settlers should become Palestinian citizens and I don't understand why no one discusses such. Why don't the settlers stay where they are and become Palestinian citizens? I mean, that's why they moved there... to live in the Palestinian part of the UN division, right? So, basically, the settlers are begging us to become Palestinian citizens instead of Israeli citizens and there is no reason why we should not grant them their wish.


Again, you really should spend the time learning about the subject before you profess an opinion. Had you come into this forum and asked real, as opposed to loaded, questions, and pretended to know more than you did, you might not have encoungetered the same amount of hostility. As long as you don't deliberately splice and mislead like Michael does. Bogus. I understand why hostilities exist and what purpose they serve.


Meanwhile, a good place to start is the book by Dennis Ross, which shows the Maps of that were offered at camp david, among other things. The maps of Camp David evolved into the talks of Taba 2001, the Geneva Accords and the Road Map. Unfortunately, Israelis rejected this, demonstrating they want to divide this independent Palestinian state into the 4 reservations surrounded by Israel that the maps of Camp David demonstrate.

Oh, and meanwhile, what you say about the neighboring Arabs states - you say this opinion with NO FOUNDATION, no evidence, no nothing...and in contravention of what the Arab say in Arabic and in the history of their actions. Again, even the countries with which Israel has peace agreements do not recognize Israel's RIGHT to exist, only that it does exist and that they are not at war...and as long as that right to exist is denied, through the media, through the mosques, through financing or harboring terror... there will never be long term peace in the middle east - only the continuing threat of apocalypse. Read the Arab Peace Plan. It basically says that that which you don't want to believe and I totally understand why you wish to believe that Arab States are only hostile because such beliefs give you excellent reasons to continue the occupation and the construction of the illegal settlements which slowly force Palestinians out of the holy land.


But of course, you with your wealth of knowledge know better, right? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Your wealth of knowledge has not shown me anything new. Educate me! :)

[Independent]

Hey independent,
since you are so obsessed with genetics and race this book will be right up your alley

My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding by David Duke
http://shop.davidduke.com/cgi-bin/dukecat/00088.html

I'm sorry, but racism does not interest me unlike how it interests others.

[Gilgamesh]

I'm sorry, but racism does not interest me unlike how it interests others.
Oh, yeah? Then how do you call the last string of your posts?

[Gilgamesh]

This sounds like another promise that will never become true, just like many others. There is no way in the world that all of these settlements would be removed. I really hope you are right!

Although, I was Sharon who removed many so called settlements in Sinai following the 1979 Peace treaty with Egypt, in return of which, Israel got the American foreign aid... as compansation for Israel's increased military vollunerability and to balance out the American foreign aid to Egypt (which should have distant Egypt from the Soviets at the time).


Personally, I believe that the settlers should become Palestinian citizens and I don't understand why no one discusses such. Because it's ain't real. The Arabs insist on ethincly cleansing the Jews from the WB, east Jerusalem and Gaza. Should some how, the Jews will be left under Arafats or other palestinian contorl, the Jews there will be slaughtered immidiately, and another war will start.


Why don't the settlers stay where they are and become Palestinian citizens? Cause the Arabs don't want them.


I mean, that's why they moved there... to live in the Palestinian part of the UN division, right? The so called green line was nothing but a cease fire line between Israel and Jorden. The "Palestinains" had no relation to the green line. The UN was no involved in the making of the green line in any form. Extrem Leftists, want such line to be recognized as international border, while the Arabs themselves insisted against it, hoping to expand their borders on Israel's expance.

The UN never recognized the "green line" as a border, or Jordens occupation of the WB as legal.


So, basically, the settlers are begging us to become Palestinian citizens instead of Israeli citizens and there is no reason why we should not grant them their wish. Many Israelis got more then one citizenship. Israeli-Russian, Israeli-French, Israeli-American. In any case, Israel will never turn her back on any Jews, with or without Israeli citizenship.


Bogus. I understand why hostilities exist and what purpose they serve. No, you are not. Your post prove exactly the opposite to you claim. Because of your imance ignorance, we educate you calmly and not banning you out of here, or ignore you entirely.


The maps of Camp David evolved into the talks of Taba 2001, the Geneva Accords and the Road Map. Unfortunately, Israelis rejected this, Israel never rejected these iniatives. They simpley faild to matrialize. A basic fundemental demand of Israel, an end for terrorism, was never met. Peace does not mean that blowing up school buses is OK, and from now on, Israel will automaticly accept and forgive the Arabs for repeating such atrocities. No other nation would.

Judaism does not include lines like "For give them L-rd cause they know not what they are doing...". It is not the Jewish way, and I never seen Christians adopting such ideas very easily...


demonstrating they want to divide this independent Palestinian state into the 4 reservations surrounded by Israel that the maps of Camp David demonstrate. Can you pove it? Had there been peace, with commarace and business and open borders, can you explain me the need for a continious Arab state?


Read the Arab Peace Plan. It included a demand for the "right of return" which basicly means flooding Israel with Arabs, and then peace will only be considered... . Unacceptable. A none starter. Israel has no need to debate on Israel very right to exist. Israel rights and their practice and preservance, are not on the table and never will be.


the illegal settlements which slowly force Palestinians out of the holy land. Who said the settlements are illegal? What settlements? Arabs upto 2000, where working in the "settlements", earning their living. The "settlements" were the only real bridge betwee the people, and now the Arabs demand on redrawing this bridge. Do they want peace? Can we belive the Arabs?


Your wealth of knowledge has not shown me anything new. Educate me! :) Start by reading our posts. You seem to overlook many of those.

[Independent]

Oh, yeah? Then how do you call the last string of your posts?

Gilgamesh, if you are are trying to blame me of being what others are, then give it up, because fiction can never become a fact. As anyone not blinded by racism can easily see, my posts defend people on both sides from the racist remarks made towards them by the other side and my posts focus one the fact that both sides can live together if they let go of their racist theories.

Of course, I know that you know this and I also understand why you want to believe something that is not true.

[Independent]

Because it's ain't real. The Arabs insist on ethincly cleansing the Jews from the WB, east Jerusalem and Gaza. Should some how, the Jews will be left under Arafats or other palestinian contorl, the Jews there will be slaughtered immidiately, and another war will start.

This is a theory which serves one purpose, to increase the transfer of "Arabs" out of the "holy land". Basically, one is accusing Arabs of doing what one is doing.


The so called green line was nothing but a cease fire line between Israel and Jorden. The "Palestinains" had no relation to the green line. The UN was no involved in the making of the green line in any form. Extrem Leftists, want such line to be recognized as international border, while the Arabs themselves insisted against it, hoping to expand their borders on Israel's expance.

Basically, the green line represents the absence of racial cleansing. That's why folks hate it so much.


The UN never recognized the "green line" as a border, or Jordens occupation of the WB as legal.

In order to accept the green line, folks must accept a divided "holy land" which means to not practice racial cleansing. That is a difficult thing to do because it seems as if most people don't want to do that.


Many Israelis got more then one citizenship. Israeli-Russian, Israeli-French, Israeli-American. In any case, Israel will never turn her back on any Jews, with or without Israeli citizenship.

I have no problem with the idea of all Palestinians and Israelis having Israeli/Palestinian citizenship. In order for countries to allow dual citizenship, an agreement must be made that is fair on both sides. Thus, as usual, Israel must work with Palestinians instead of working against them.


No, you are not. Your post prove exactly the opposite to you claim. Because of your imance ignorance, we educate you calmly and not banning you out of here, or ignore you entirely. You may believe what every you wish about me, but I'll only accept Zionist theories when they are logical. If you want to ban me, then do it at your own convenience because such threats don't bother me.


Israel never rejected these iniatives. They simpley faild to matrialize. That couldn't be further from the truth.



A basic fundemental demand of Israel, an end for terrorism, was never met. Peace does not mean that blowing up school buses is OK, and from now on, Israel will automaticly accept and forgive the Arabs for repeating such atrocities. No other nation would. An end of resistance means an end of the occupation. One can't build illegal settlements, slowly forcing people from the land while believing that they won't defend themselves from this forced removal. Certainly, after Oslo a chance for peace existed, but the illegal settlements kept on growing, destroying all hopes for such. Now, all that remains is more racial cleansing and more violence unless Sharon can prove otherwise.

[Mediocrates]

After nearly 5 decades of internal oppression, corruption, mismanagement & anarchy Palestinian 'society' is beginning to fracture and cease functioning altogether. The people who chose to watch it burn because it gives them a hard on to blame the Jews are just being silly and stupid and when the rest of us are operating kosher hot dog stands on the moon, they will still be floundering in the muck. This thread is a great example of that.

[Oh Jerusalem]

when the rest of us are operating kosher hot dog stands on the moon
Under the supervision of the Moonkatcher Rebbe! :p

[MGB8]

Independent,

You really are a very very misinformed, or uninformed, person. READ DENNIS ROSS'S BOOK! Maybe then you will actually know some things, instead of repeating propaganda as religiously held truth. You are simply wrong on most of your facts.

For example, Camp David/Taba did not "evolve" into the Road Map. Arafat launched a terror war because to settle would mean to give up the idea of an Arab Palestine replacing Israel, and Arafat is unwilling to do so, because, although he is mainly a secular person, his deeply held religious (and Muslim/Arab nationalist) beliefs wouldn't allow him to be the one who gave legitimacy to the Jewish state.

You are reading only from one side of the story, and the side that you are reading from is very famous for its machiavelian approach to truth - as the late King Hussein said of Arafat, he never met a bridge he couldn't double cross. This is another thing you have to understand about Arab/Muslim culture. In Judeo-Christian Western culture, you have opposing cultural themes of the Machiavelli/Odyseus-esque approach to lying (its ok as long as it gets you what you want) and the religious base approach to lying (its never ok unless it is saving your life, and even then its a sin, just an allowable one).

Islam does not really have a strong parallel to the Judeo-Christian approach to lying (including lying for propaganda), as Mohammed himself was quite a Machavelian. As such, you get things like fake massacres, staged video's of Israeli attrocities (caught by the cameras to be fake, as like when a corpse falls off a stretcher only to hop right back on), claims that the Holy Temple was never in Jerusalem (puts a little crimp in Christianity, don't it) and saying one thing in English and another in Arabic. Remember that to Arafat, Oslo was literally a Trojan Horse to get him inside the Walls of Israel.

Meanwhile, until you actually learn what you are talking about, you have ZERO credibility, Indipendent, you are a person with an opinion, but no clue.

You really have NO idea what the truth is, so when you say something else "couldn't be further from the truth", its laughable, sad, funny, pathetic and dangerous all at the same time.

Go Kurdish suicide Bombers! Go Native American suicide bombers! Go Aboriginees suicide Bombers - bomb those Sidney nightclubs!, go Basque suicide Bombers, bomb Spanish Beaches and French resorts!...after all, according to you and Michael, these tactics are just legitimate actions, and any counter reaction is just state terror, unallowable. Of course, you'd never actually support these things to happen, only to the Jews...which exposses that you and Michael and all your ilk are Jew-haters.

[Independent]

For example, Camp David/Taba did not "evolve" into the Road Map.

Why not? Camp David was a good beginning, but it needed the Palestinian perspective so that it wouldn't be one-sided and this resulted in the talks of Taba 2001 and later the Geneva Accords which is very similar to the Road Map.


Arafat launched a terror war because to settle would mean to give up the idea of an Arab Palestine replacing Israel, and Arafat is unwilling to do so, because, although he is mainly a secular person, his deeply held religious (and Muslim/Arab nationalist) beliefs wouldn't allow him to be the one who gave legitimacy to the Jewish state. This concept is based on myths, not facts and totally ignored the PA support for the Geneva Accords. Remember, even Arafat said that he would accept the Geneva Accords if Sharon accepted it, but Sharon strongly rejected it.


You are reading only from one side of the story, The Geneva Accords, the Road Map, the Arab Peace Plan and the talks of Taba 2001 are all two-side stories. But, Camp David and Sharon's Initiative are one-side stories.


saying one thing in English and another in Arabic. Remember that to Arafat, Oslo was literally a Trojan Horse to get him inside the Walls of Israel. Israelis do that too. The English version is often different from the Hebrew version. As we can see, both sides seem to suffer from the same problem.


Meanwhile, until you actually learn what you are talking about, you have ZERO credibility, Indipendent, you are a person with an opinion, but no clue. You really have NO idea what the truth is, so when you say something else "couldn't be further from the truth", its laughable, sad, funny, pathetic and dangerous all at the same time. That is the typical Zionist method of challenging the truth. Have you ever wondered why I don't have the need to use such language? The truth is obviously at my advantage. :)


after all, according to you and Michael, these tactics are just legitimate actions, and any counter reaction is just state terror, unallowable. Of course, you'd never actually support these things to happen, only to the Jews...which exposses that you and Michael and all your ilk are Jew-haters. This is another of many incorrect assumptions. Your assumptions are very inaccurate and your accusations are misleading. But, of course, this is the Zionist method of fighting against the truth, so this behavior is understandable. The truth is, my friend, that one can't fight against an occupation that doesn't exist. But, I don't expect Zionists to understand this.

[Independent]

After nearly 5 decades of internal oppression, corruption, mismanagement & anarchy Palestinian 'society' is beginning to fracture and cease functioning altogether. The people who chose to watch it burn because it gives them a hard on to blame the Jews are just being silly and stupid and when the rest of us are operating kosher hot dog stands on the moon, they will still be floundering in the muck. This thread is a great example of that.

Ah, so this demonstrates that the Likud platform is accomplishing its goals? I'm not surprised. :)

[avinu613]

The time has come for Jews to take a stand.

Sing the petition telling Bush that if he does not recognize the legality of all the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, before November he will not get our votes.
Spread this petition far and wide, we need a massive effort.

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/eyisrael/petition.html

[Independent]

The time has come for Jews to take a stand.

Sing the petition telling Bush that if he does not recognize the legality of all the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, before November he will not get our votes.
Spread this petition far and wide, we need a massive effort.

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/eyisrael/petition.html

So, basically, if Bush does not finance the forced transfer of Palestinians to Jordan, he won't get Zionist support, right? Why is it that I'm one of the few here who is honest about what is going on without trying to pretend that it is not happening by using interesting vocabulary?

Thanks for the offer, but I'm confident that the illegal settlers will become fine and proud Palestinian citizens. I mean, that's why they moved there in the first place, right? :)

[MGB8]

Independent,

First, the idea of voting blocks based primarily on one issue (ie. Abortion one way or the other, etc.) isn't new or all that insidious. That said, I disagree with the petitioner - but they certainly have the right to vote whatever way they want, and tell people about it, to.

Second, READ DENNIS ROSS'S book. Then you might have a clue, which you don't. You take all the Arab propaganda at face value, do not look into what they said IN ARABIC, and, essentially, repeat lies, which doesn't quite make you a liar, if you believe them - it just makes you a tool, or usefull idiot, a term Arafat coined.

The idea that Arafat accepted the geneva accords...you really don't understand Arafat - he accepted them as a step towards the elimination of Israel, but as an issue by issue solution/ending of the conflict - meaning the acceptance of the Right of Israel to exist and pledging to not, in the future, undercut that right (and in fact to EDUCATE his people about that right) - has never happened, and, under Arafat, will never happen.

People here were right, and I gave you too much of the benefit of the doubt - you are a poor man's Michael - an uninformed want-to-be Arab propagandist. May what you would have befall other befall you. In other words, I hope that your support for Suicide bombers leads to a suicide bomb blowing up you and your family. That is what we call poetic justice. Not a very Jewish thing to say, but I can live with that.

[michael]

Michael,

The last post you wrote was, in your tradition, at best factually innacurate and misleading.

The difference between Sharon's eventual map and Barak and Clinton's maps, which never offered "Cantons", is about 10% of the WB. That means that Israel giving back a "small part" - its 85%, with some more land from Israel being given to the Pal's in return. And for what concession on the Arab part? The so called "Oslo" concession of the existence of Israel? There is no such concession, that's a bad joke. If so, then the Israeli concession is the mere recognition of the PLO, and no transfer to Jordan, Syria, etc.

Now, there is some legitimate Pal Arab complaint that they wouldn't immediately control the Borders with Jordan and Egypt, Israel (or an international force, or both) would man that border on an interim basis, until the Pal Arabs proved that they were not going to continue attacking Israel.

Meanwhile, the Pal Arabs GET A COUNTRY, which they don't, and have never had. They get LAND, which they don't, and have NEVER had. They get the ETHNIC CLEANSING of Jews from newly acquired land. They get international protection. They get many things.....


What percentage of the West Bank remains under Israeli control is a little contentious. It depends on which proposal/idea/suggestion you talk about. What is clear is that as discussions progressed from Camp David to Taba the Israeli position moved closer to meeting some of the Palestinian demands, including returning more territory. For instance, at Camp David the land swap ratio was 9:1 in Israel's favour. By Taba this had dropped to only 2:1 in Israels favour. That's an Israeli concession. Generous, no?

It's curious what these Israeli concessions are. Finally agreeing, in practice, to UN Res 242 is a 'concession'. Returning illegally annexed East Jerusalem is a 'concession'.
But that's always been a clever tactic, take something unilaterally, then later when it is returned, call it a concession demonstrating Israels' generosity.

But significant progress was made. It was all too late, but the decision not to continue the talks after February 2001, was an Israeli (or should I say, a Sharon) one.

[MGB8]

Oh,

and the reason you don't "resort to language" is because, to you, truth is a game, and the actual truth, what happened, doesn't matter - you will believe what you believe no matter what - blind faith based on Jew-hatred, nothing else. To us, its a matter of life and death. When people lie like you do, we get angry, a human response. When you are confronted by the truth, you are amused, because the truth doesn't matter to you. THAT is why you can be polite - because you don't care about the truth at all.

[MGB8]

Michael,

Please name me one instance where a nation has been asked to return land won from an agressor nation (Jordan.)

And, shouldn't Israel be talking about returning the land to Jordan, since they were the owners of the land when Israel won it in 1967? Oh wait, Jordan renounced claim! They have a peace treaty with Israel which settles all outstanding issues!

We've been through this before, Michael...and, frankly, you know in your heart that you are wrong on this, applying a double-standard to the Jewish state that you would never apply to any other nation, ignoring reality for the basis of justifying your beliefs. For the Pal Arabs to get ANYTHING - ANY LAND - is a concession on Israel's part. Of course, given demographics, that concession may need to be made, but it nevertheless is a concession. The Arabs want something that they don't have, that they don't really have the right to have. Israel doesn't have to give the squat, except, if they annex the whole of the WB, they really do have to give the residents citizenship (national suicide). But we know what your ultimate goals are, Michael. I repeat to you what I stated to Independent - may what you would have befall others befall you and yours. Sleep well.

Oh - your land swap numbers? Based on what? the Partition plan? Right.... Same old propaganda.

[Gilgamesh]

This is a theory which serves one purpose, to increase the transfer of "Arabs" out of the "holy land". Basically, one is accusing Arabs of doing what one is doing.
Can you prove you allegation?

Casue I can prove mine:
Thats is history which might repeat itself:
The massacre in Hebrom (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/hebron29.html)
Arab atrocities (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_war_atrocities_arab.php)
Just a nice link about the treatment of Jews by Arabs (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf15.html)
About the enthinc cleansing of Jews from east Jerusalem's in 1948-49. (http://www.jerusalem-archives.org/period5/5-11.html)
More history read (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_jerusalem.php)


Basically, the green line represents the absence of racial cleansing. That's why folks hate it so much. Expalin us, what is the importance of the "green line" instead of some other line? Why it has to be the green line and not some other line? There are million BETTER ways to devid the country according to some REAL factors, such as demographics, rather then worshiping the "green line". Can you solve this riddle for me?


In order to accept the green line, folks must accept a divided "holy land" which means to not practice racial cleansing. That is a difficult thing to do because it seems as if most people don't want to do that. When most people don't want some thing, that thing becomes irrlevent.


I have no problem with the idea of all Palestinians and Israelis having Israeli/Palestinian citizenship. Right... but the rest of us, do have such a probelm. Both Jews and Arabs... can you understand that?


In order for countries to allow dual citizenship, an agreement must be made that is fair on both sides. As I proved you in past presentations, what Arabs consider fair do not include Jews right to exist. How can a peace deal be struck on such conditions?


Thus, as usual, Israel must work with Palestinians instead of working against them. Not while they bomb our children, and not agaisnt the "Palestinian's" wishes.


I'll only accept Zionist theories when they are logical. Your own logic challenges, is not my field. You need profetional help. Sorry...


If you want to ban me, then do it at your own convenience because such threats don't bother me. It will come. We still have faith in you.


That couldn't be further from the truth.
Israel-Palestinian Negotiations (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Israel-Palestinian%20Negotiations)
Camp David accords (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php)
Taba peace talks (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_taba.php)
Road map (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,445757,00.html)


An end of resistance means an end of the occupation.
What occupation do Arabs mean? (http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/slideshowimages/slide1.html)


One can't build illegal settlements, slowly forcing people from the land while believing that they won't defend themselves from this forced removal. Then expalin me why the Arab population has trippled (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/demograhics.html) if they are "removed"?? More figures (http://www.factsofisrael.com/en/stats.shtml)


Certainly, after Oslo a chance for peace existed, but the illegal settlements kept on growing, destroying all hopes for such. Don't you forget Arab terrorism as the main cause for the collapse of any deal with the Arabs? Or you are one of those who understand Arabs feelings and find it quite normal to murder Jewish babies (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%20Obstacle%20to%20Peace/Memorial/2001/Shalhevet%20Tehiya%20Pass).


Now, all that remains is more racial cleansing and more violence unless Sharon can prove otherwise. Why Sharon? Don't Arabs got any responsibility to end terrorism?

Only mentaly ill and small children got no legal responsibility over their own actions. Why do you insist listing the Arabs as well to that list? Are you racist against Arabs? Do you consider Arabs inferior or mentaly ill, that they have no responsibility over their actions? (http://www.chayas.com/media.htm)

More pictures of Arabs "humanism" (http://rotter.net/israel/)

A good link makes good reading (http://www.fact-index.com/w/we/west_bank.html)

[michael]

Michael,
Please name me one instance where a nation has been asked to return land won from an agressor nation (Jordan.)
Nice tactic - start with a meaningless rhetorical question.

The applicable principle is the UN Charter, which rules out any territorial conquest by war, which was confirmed in UN Res 242.


And, shouldn't Israel be talking about returning the land to Jordan, since they were the owners of the land when Israel won it in 1967? Oh wait, Jordan renounced claim! They have a peace treaty with Israel which settles all outstanding issues!
When a state relinquishes its' claim, as Jordan did, it's generally considered that the only genuine way to determine the fate of those people is through an act of self-determination, the results of which none would doubt (hint - it wouldn't be a request for a patch work of Jewish settlements and foreign military occupation).


For the Pal Arabs to get ANYTHING - ANY LAND - is a concession on Israel's part. Of course, given demographics, that concession may need to be made, but it nevertheless is a concession. The Arabs want something that they don't have, that they don't really have the right to have.
Well MGB8 is partially right - Israel considers that returning even an inch of land to the Palestinians is a 'concession', which says a lot about Israels' position.

Palestinans with title to their land where they have lived for generations will be mildly surprised "that they don't really have the right" to that land.
Is someone's extremism showing? :rolleyes:





Oh - your land swap numbers? Based on what? the Partition plan? Right.... Same old propaganda.
Partition plan?? What are you talking about?

It's hard to pin some of these numbers down as there's no official agreements, only differing accounts from various parties and maps that are negotiating positions and discussion points

But this is what Dennis Ross said at a lecture at the Georgetown University Law Centre(19th July 2001),

"But I will grant you, there was a potential in Camp David, which was 91% of the West Bank and 1% swap [of Israeli land]."

[Canajew]

Why not? Camp David was a good beginning, but it needed the Palestinian perspective so that it wouldn't be one-sided and this resulted in the talks of Taba 2001 and later the Geneva Accords which is very similar to the Road Map.

This concept is based on myths, not facts and totally ignored the PA support for the Geneva Accords. Remember, even Arafat said that he would accept the Geneva Accords if Sharon accepted it, but Sharon strongly rejected it.

The Geneva Accords, the Road Map, the Arab Peace Plan and the talks of Taba 2001 are all two-side stories. But, Camp David and Sharon's Initiative are one-side stories.

Israelis do that too. The English version is often different from the Hebrew version. As we can see, both sides seem to suffer from the same problem.

That is the typical Zionist method of challenging the truth. Have you ever wondered why I don't have the need to use such language? The truth is obviously at my advantage. :)

This is another of many incorrect assumptions. Your assumptions are very inaccurate and your accusations are misleading. But, of course, this is the Zionist method of fighting against the truth, so this behavior is understandable. The truth is, my friend, that one can't fight against an occupation that doesn't exist. But, I don't expect Zionists to understand this.
you do not seem to understand that Arafat pretending to support the Geneva accords, just like he pretended to support the Oslo accords, was a FICTION. He in reality did not support these thigns, as he has said time and time again with respect to the fictional "right of retun" which is "given up" under Geneva. Araaft continues to pursue his war, while draweing on WORDS pretendign to seek peace while engaging in ACTIONS which run completely counter to these words.

It is amazing the propaganda mileage the pro-Palestinaisn get out of the PA's "support" for the road map, the geneva accords, and the Arab's "peace initiative". All of it is such a complete and obvious joke but they have completely internalized that they are genuine commitments made by the PA leadership. Maybe a thread needs to be started on each one of these in turn, but somethiung is necessary to demonstrate that on one side here are the things mouthed by the Arabs and the Palestinians where on the other side here are their true intentions behind these words and here are the actions which deonstrate that they really have never had any intention of using these words and these plans for anything other than propaganda mileage.

[Canajew]

What percentage of the West Bank remains under Israeli control is a little contentious. It depends on which proposal/idea/suggestion you talk about. What is clear is that as discussions progressed from Camp David to Taba the Israeli position moved closer to meeting some of the Palestinian demands, including returning more territory. For instance, at Camp David the land swap ratio was 9:1 in Israel's favour. By Taba this had dropped to only 2:1 in Israels favour. That's an Israeli concession. Generous, no?

It's curious what these Israeli concessions are. Finally agreeing, in practice, to UN Res 242 is a 'concession'. Returning illegally annexed East Jerusalem is a 'concession'.
But that's always been a clever tactic, take something unilaterally, then later when it is returned, call it a concession demonstrating Israels' generosity.

But significant progress was made. It was all too late, but the decision not to continue the talks after February 2001, was an Israeli (or should I say, a Sharon) one.
ignoring of course that the Palestinaisn had already launched a terrorist war directed against Israel's civilians and Israel was neither under the boligation to or had any real interest in negotiating with a party engaged in such terrorism. You need to incorporate this into yuor worldview and explain how it would be unreasonable for Israel to decide not to continue negotiations as the Palestinains try to use the murder of civilians as leverage.

[Independent]

It is amazing the propaganda mileage the pro-Palestinaisn get out of the PA's "support" for the road map, the geneva accords, and the Arab's "peace initiative". All of it is such a complete and obvious joke but they have completely internalized that they are genuine commitments made by the PA leadership. Maybe a thread needs to be started on each one of these in turn, but somethiung is necessary to demonstrate that on one side here are the things mouthed by the Arabs and the Palestinians where on the other side here are their true intentions behind these words and here are the actions which deonstrate that they really have never had any intention of using these words and these plans for anything other than propaganda mileage.

According to your logic, we have a situation where Israeli folks want to destroy Palestine and Palestinian folks want to destroy Israel. Of course, the Israeli folks have a major advantage because they, unlike the Palestinian folks, have the complete capability to do as they say and they are doing it too. Thus, one can only wonder why Israelis are so eager to believe that Palestinians want to do what they want to do.

[Canajew]

According to your logic, we have a situation where Israeli folks want to destroy Palestine and Palestinian folks want to destroy Israel. Of course, the Israeli folks have a major advantage because they, unlike the Palestinian folks, have the complete capability to do as they say and they are doing it too. Thus, one can only wonder why Israelis are so eager to believe that Palestinians want to do what they want to do.
but of course given that isarel ahs the capability to do what you say, if they truly desired to do so it would have been done already. By contrast, the Palestinaisn right now do not have the opportunity to do so, and so they leverage false peace initiatives and engage in terrorist in order to extract concessions sufficient to put them in a better position to advance their plans for the future.

[Ophra]

According to your logic, we have a situation where Israeli folks want to destroy Palestine and Palestinian folks want to destroy Israel. Of course, the Israeli folks have a major advantage because they, unlike the Palestinian folks, have the complete capability to do as they say and they are doing it too. Thus, one can only wonder why Israelis are so eager to believe that Palestinians want to do what they want to do.

What a total load of unadulterated BS. I can't believe that anyone has had the patience to try and debate anything with you thus far. What the hell are you doing here ? You don't have a clue .... it's gibberish you speekith.

We have the capability of taking Arafat out as I type .... do we ? No. Does he deserve it ? Oh yes.
If we really wanted to we could "destroy Palestine" within a week .... do we ? No.
Go play your morality game with China V Tibet.... they might understand your goobiliegook better than we can.

[Gilgamesh]

then give it up, because fiction can never become a fact. It never stopped you from believeing in non sense. It's me and the others here, who try to fetch you down amid the clouds you are living in. You're the best fiction poster around, and you come back at us with complaints?


As anyone not blinded by racism can easily see, my posts defend people on both sides from the racist remarks made towards them by the other side and my posts focus one the fact that both sides can live together if they let go of their racist theories. What other side? On your home forum you say Amen to every word Michele and other Chomskians are saying automaticly. Totally UN-INDEPENDENT thought is given a whole new meaning by you and your ilk.


Of course, I know that you know this and I also understand why you want to believe something that is not true. OK: We move to the decleration test: Declare your possition toward Arab indiscriminate mass murder of Jewish civilians, aspecialy children and elderly.
No BUT, ALTHOGH or HOWEVER is allowed. Use as few words as you can.

This is the FIRST anti semetic tests you go through here. Ignoring this, will only cause others to copy this question or ignore you. We really want to read your decleration.

[Gilgamesh]

Ah, so this demonstrates that the Likud platform is accomplishing its goals? I'm not surprised. :)

Can you prove what you quote, is the Likud part goals? Or you just having fun exhibiting you ignorance and floating emptry sloagans which are not even originaly yours...

[avinu613]

So, basically, if Bush does not finance the forced transfer of Palestinians to Jordan, he won't get Zionist support, right? Why is it that I'm one of the few here who is honest about what is going on without trying to pretend that it is not happening by using interesting vocabulary?

Thanks for the offer, but I'm confident that the illegal settlers will become fine and proud Palestinian citizens. I mean, that's why they moved there in the first place, right? :)


If you would read the petition, I am not asking for the transfer of the Arabs, but only that the Jews be given the right to live in their land that they won in a defensive war in 1967 from Jordan. Thats all

[MGB8]

Michael,

Once again, pre or post UN Charter, give me ONE example of a nation being demanded of it to give up all the lands it acquired in a defensive war.

Oh, and just because you say its meaningless doesn't make it so. In fact, its PRECEDENT, which is VERY meaningful. North and South Korea didn't give up lands. Neither did North Vietnam. These are post charter, no? But pre-charter occassions are just as pertinent, considering that the Charter is not enforced on Arab states who invaded and still do not recognize Israel, in contravention of the charter.

What we have, Michael, is your hypocrisy based on your hatred of Israel and Jews, nothing more. That is why you will not argue this point, because it exposes your hyporcrisy - with the UN or with precendent.

Independent....your positions expose you. And not for a truth teller.

[Canajew]

if the acquisition of territories by force is necessarily not allowed, then the Palestinians would not be able to acquire sovereignty over the territories they claim as they have used force in order to get it. Something doesn't jibe.

[michael]

Perhaps synapses aren't jibing.

International law also recognises the right of armed resisitance to occupation. Also the right to defend aganst armed aggresion.

As for MGB8's determination to focus on the situation of "defensive wars" - it's utterly irrelevant (not to mention highly contentiuos).
The reason no distinction is made is that every state involved in a conflict likes to claim it acts in self-defence. Even the Nazis claimed this when they invaded neighbouring countries.

[Canajew]

Perhaps synapses aren't jibing.

International law also recognises the right of armed resisitance to occupation. Also the right to defend aganst armed aggresion.

As for MGB8's determination to focus on the situation of "defensive wars" - it's utterly irrelevant (not to mention highly contentiuos).
The reason no distinction is made is that every state involved in a conflict likes to claim it acts in self-defence. Even the Nazis claimed this when they invaded neighbouring countries.
I undertsand that international law allows resistnace, but where territories are disputed (and here I am speaking of lands the Palestinians claim within the disputed territories but not actually inhabited by them) do not both parties have the same prohibition against territorial acquisition by war?

I undertsand that it is now generally asserted that the Palestinaisn are entitled to all of the teritories that they claim, and indeed they do have a right of self-determination on those protions that they actually inhabit, and tangentially, all lands necessary to create contiguity in the disputed territories, but if theyt manage to force Israel back to the green line by force, why do they have any better cliam where acquiring lands inhabited not by them but either by no one or by Jews? It seems that in the framing of debate you have imparted a bias to dictate particular results.

These territories were cpatured from Jordan. In the war in 1948, Israel WAS allowed to acquire territory by force in a defensive war. Jordan was not recognized as the valid sovereign over the occupied territories, and there never was a particular final border established between the two pieces of land, while at the same time the Palestinians never asserted sovereignty over that land. Further, given the continuation of the terms of the mandate and the lack of sovereign legal ownership, and the fact that both the PAlestinaisn and the Israelis had arguable assertations of sovereignty over these territories (or parts thereof) why is it permitted for the Palestinaisn to use force to occupy "settlements" (where they do not and have never lived)?

Again, I think what is happening is that you are ex ante ascribing moral weight to arguments and determinintg that the Paelstinaisn are entitled as of right to a particular piece of mland and then following through on that asumption to arrive at the conclusion that the Palestinaisn can acquire it by force and the Israelis cannot.

The Palestinains certainly have a right to resist occupation of their population centres. But areas on the seam line and settlements that are on lands that were never owned by the Palestinaisn nor lived on do not seem to meet the criteria for lands to be legally conquored by force by an occupied people.

[MGB8]

I have no problems, really, with Palestinian attacks on soldiers, checkpoints, military instalations and the like. That's war. Of course, don't complain when the opposing party wars back.

On the other hand, there is a long standing line of precedent and logic about "just wars", which encompase defensive wars.

Still, Michael, you haven't answer my question - ducked it one way, ducked it another, but refusing to answer a direct and simple question. Why is Israel treated differently than every other nation on earth? If it isn't, give me some examples. Afraid of this question, Michael? I would be, as this question exposes you, just as it exposes independent.

You may deny it, but there certainly is a difference, in terms of historical precendent, pre and post the charter, regarding defensive wars and land acquisition therefrom.

Moreover, you also treat Israel differently from all other nations in the extent you ask it to live up to the UN Charter - since all the Arab nations except Jordan and Egypt are in flagrant violation of the Charter just vis a vi Israel...and that's not digging any deeper - and there are miles in which to dig. But, Michael, you are in good company, as the UN itself, and the EU, also has decided that it can discriminate against little Israel and the Jews, because some people, people like you, hate the Jews....and since Hitler didn't succeed, try and try again..

[Independent]

If you would read the petition, I am not asking for the transfer of the Arabs, but only that the Jews be given the right to live in their land that they won in a defensive war in 1967 from Jordan. Thats all

Of course people can live on the land if they are willing to live on the land with the people who live there without transfering them to Jordan and by giving them either citizenship or independence. In 1967, Israel attacked other nations, as we can correctly remember, and the war really had nothing to do with the people who lived on the land. Thus, as we can see, if Israel wants to have the land, then it should give the people who live on the land equality and citizenship too. This is only a fair perspective.

You don't need to directly ask for the transfer of Palestinians to Jordan because asking for growing Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territories that are forcing Palestinians to move to Jordan since they can't live in the "holy land" is basically the same thing. One just has to look at the big picture to understand its meaning.

While I'm not a Bush fan, I certainly do hope that Bush will not be remembered forever as the US president who financed racial cleansing.

[Independent]

Perhaps synapses aren't jibing.

International law also recognises the right of armed resisitance to occupation. Also the right to defend aganst armed aggresion.

As for MGB8's determination to focus on the situation of "defensive wars" - it's utterly irrelevant (not to mention highly contentiuos).
The reason no distinction is made is that every state involved in a conflict likes to claim it acts in self-defence. Even the Nazis claimed this when they invaded neighbouring countries.

Only Jewish immigrants are allowed to use armed resistance against the occupying power from a Zionist perspective. No other group of people is allowed to do such from a Zionist perspective. We must not forget that International Law does not apply to Israelis and they have a whole different perspective on such things, allowing them to do things that no one else does.

[Independent]

I have no problems, really, with Palestinian attacks on soldiers, checkpoints, military instalations and the like. That's war. Of course, don't complain when the opposing party wars back.

The main issue here is that, after 100 years, Palestinians are still being forced from the "holy land". That's why different methods of resistance are being used. While I don't support the practice of violence, I also don't support transfer theories that create the need for resistance. Equality and citizenship in a democratic state is the proper solution.

[Jehan]

Oh Jerusalem


Of course! Our 1 million plus Israeli Arabs live on a pinhead.
Stupider and stupider. Are you a Quadafi blood relative, by any chance?


Finding it hard to believe that 93% of the land in a supposedly democratic country can only be used by people who belong to a certain ethnicity? Are you actually doubting the ability of the private purely philanthropic agency that ensures Jews have overriding priority, by any chance?

93% is a lot, yes. But then this accumulation of land for the use of Jews has been going on for a long time. Because by systematically reducing Non-Jewish land ownership, obviously Jewish control over the country is better established, or at least that is the theory. Just as obviously, this cannot be called anything but discrimination.

This discrimination is supported by a framework of laws and regulations allowing confiscation for defined purposes (such as requiring areas for military firing ranges or for potential infrastructural projects).

Another method is just simply refusing to recognise indigenous land rights (e.g. the Bedouins in the Negev). In cases of confiscation, the government determines the value of the land, and thus compensation. Needless to say, the value of the land somehow or other always turns out to be remarkably low, and more often than not the land is expropriated without settlement.

Meanwhile, private owners are "encouraged" to sell through a land taxation system.[Property tax is raised on land privately owned at a rate of 2.5% pa of the market value of the land.]

And just in case any of the former owners of the "national land" decides to visit, the state must protect the land through fencing and the military “environmental” unit known as the Green Patrol, established to keep trespassers off "public lands". [expanded in 1997 to speed up the resettlement of the Negev Bedouins.]

It's a wonderful system really. You have no cause to go doubting it's capability and effectiveness.

Of course public land in Israel is administered by the Israel Land Authority (ILA) which as a public body has a legal obligation not to discriminate against citizens. But...The governing council of the ILA is comprised of 50% government representatives and 50% representatives of the Jewish National Fund, which...acts in the interest of Jews only, according to it's constitution.

So...93% can only be used by Jews. That's good. But there's the "pinhead" that the Arabs live on...what do we do about that?

Well, there's using land zoning categories (construction, agricultural, industrial) to prevent Palestinian Arab communities from expanding and to limit the land that can be built on, or to deny communities’ right to exist, as in the case of the unrecognised villages. Of course it is almost unheard of that the category of land use is changed for Arab development.

Jurisdiction puts large areas of Palestinian Arab land under Jewish control, through the creation of regional councils in Arab areas, such as the one at Misgav. Limiting the jurisdiction of Palestinian Arab localities has made them increasingly built up compared to Jewish localities.

For example, Nazareth has a jurisdiction of 14,200 dunams for 60,000 people; while the nearby Jewish town of Nazerat Illit has 34,000 dunams among a population of 45,000.....a significant proportion of which was originally Nazareth land. Unsurprisingly, there is increasingly less space in these jurisdictions to cope with natural growth.

So...you weren't far wrong.

All this is about demographic goals, in the end. Discrimination is just an unpleasant-sounding necessity right? How are you going to ensure Jews have overriding priority without differentiating between Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities, after all?

Just to make it easier, there are ways and means of differentiation:

National Priorities: Declaring certain areas of national priority and granting them significantly higher development budgets and social and economic benefits to provide incentives to expand development. In 1998, out of the 429 localities classified as national priority status 'A' areas...425 were Jewish.

Local Plans: Delaying approval of local development plans for Non-Jewish communities. To date, 29 out of 81 Arab local authorities have had their development plans approved [State of Israel, First Periodic Report on its Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (July 1998), para. 713.] Until central approval of their plans, local authorities are prevented from bidding for development budgets to implement them.

National Plans: Regional and national plans ignore Arab needs, or override the plans of Arab local authorities. In the new master plan of the Northern (Galilee) district [Change No. 9 of Regional Master Plan No. 2; planners assigned 5 February 1991; first draft 1992.] the issues identified as key problems included: (i) The demographic minority of Jewish citizens in many parts of the Galilee. (ii) The geographic continuity of Arab communities. Though the state granted Nazareth municipality land on which to build an industrial zone as part of its local development plan, that land was subsequently zoned as an environmental area in the Israel 2020 national plan, thus preventing the work from even beginning. Which is convenient.

All in all...this wonderful system is summed up by the case of the Palestinian Arab family which, rather naively, tried to buy a house in a community established on national land. The housing committee refused to allow the family to move in on the grounds that they were not Jewish. Only Jews Need Apply.

After 50 years, 'redeeming' state lands from the state itself to transfer them from the citizens of the state to world Jewry, only so as to prevent Israeli citizens from living on them, not only looks absurd, but has little redemption about it and a lot of racism." Orit Shohat

[michael]

All in all...this wonderful system is summed up by the case of the Palestinian Arab family which, rather naively, tried to buy a house in a community established on national land. The housing committee refused to allow the family to move in on the grounds that they were not Jewish. Only Jews Need Apply.

Not quite the whole picture Jehan. If it's the family I'm thinking of, they won their case at the High Court, but were still blocked from purchasing a home.

By the way, good post. Some stuff there I wasn't aware of.

[Jehan]

Canajew


is this necessarily wrong?

Uhm...personally I believe giving any one group of citizens privileges, priority, more rights, whatever you want to call it, undermines all that equality and morality talk just a little. Can't have it both ways. Therefore, it is necessarily wrong. Yes.


Israel is like affirmative action for a historically disadvantaged minority.

Affirmative action which has had consequences for others.Is it the Palestinians fault that the Jews have been a historically disadvantaged minority? Your point about British mandatory Palestine is a little confusing...do you believe there ever was a Palestine for there to be a British mandatory Palestine?

I understand that Zionists had an understandable desire to establish a place where Jews could be masters of their own fate, given the history of Jewish oppression. I don't understand racism.


Quebec seeks out immigrants who speak french, takes legal steps to protect their cultural heritage and their distinct society, and should be fully entitled to do so.

You are right to say things are complicated "with respect to the needs to preserve cultural distinction" more so with Israel than with most countries, because of the fact that it is a unique state established for "world Jewry". But that doesn't change the facts.

I can understand preserving heritage and culture, even to the extent of having different schools, believe it or not. I'm sure I wasn't grumbling about Jews and Palestinians going to different schools Canajew. But...I can't help seeing a little difference in going to different schools which cater for different cultural groups, and the accumulation of vast territories of land for the sole use of one ethnic group, securing it from all others.


Don't think it does mean this, but the government certainly must take into account the national goals of the people. The Israelis have just as much right to be a majority in their own land as the Poles or the Czechs.

It's easy enough to see Israel's position. More or less constantly under threat, struggling to fulfill it's dream of a state where Jews are "in control" and a majority with priority, so to speak. After all it's meant to be a state for the Jewish people...

Taking one step further, the JNF's aims become reasonable enough. The Jews should have most of the land, like the Poles or the Czechs. After all it's their land in one sense (their state), although…not in another.

Having said all that, there is one thing I cannot understand. How can people accept all this, while totally ignoring and refusing to acknowledge the discrimination it implies?

Because in securing the right of Jews to be a majority in their own land, Israel is taking the land from it's original inhabitants. In ensuring Jews have overriding priority and preserving Israel’s unique position of being a state for Jews from all over the world, Israel must discriminate between it’s Jewish and Non-Jewish citizens.



people have freedom of religion as long as they have the particualr religion of the majority. If not, they do not. The fact this makes no sense is for ME governments to explain. you are right, it makes no sense, but Arab policies have made no sense for quite a long time now.

Canajew, that is not quite what I meant. Although it's true enough Arab policies don't make sense, neither does Mediocrates reply.


Not everyone is a Muslim, so freedom of religion does (sort of) exist.
As long as you're a Muslim.

I do agree freedom of religion is limited. Yet at the same time, not everyone in Saudi Arabia, and certainly not everyone in the Middle East is a Muslim. If there is not freedom of religion whatsoever, how do you explain this fact?

You disagreed with some of what i said on racism.

So let me get this straight: according to your view when you see someone as superior because they are from a certain ethnicity or race, that is not
racism?

As for culture, your argument makes sense insofar as different cultures may be more or less advanced than others. That does not necessarily imply an innate superiority or inferiority, it implies difference. Also true that cultures change.

The rest of what you said, I cannot fully agree with.


But the inferiority of other cultures on these axis makes it proportionally more difficult for those immersed in these cultures to achieve these objectives

First, if you maintain that all people can integrate into all cultures, why should their culture, any more than their race, prevent integration? Because the way others think is different, or inferior? Their level of morality lower?

This seems to me to be crossing over a little into racism. I'm sorry but it just sounds too much like saying certain groups can't grasp something because "that is the way they are". Furthermore, who is it who judges inferiority and superiority? If one culture is judged by another, how can this judgment be fair?

For example, a group of people are considered "inferior" because, people say, numbers above five were "beyond them". Until it is discovered that they had a different, highly sophisticated counting system that is. The way I see it, supposed inferiority or superiority often only amounts to difference, judged by another culture according to their own ideas of what is and what isn't "right".


The rampant corruption in Arab world governance and ithe lack of civic institutions, a history of free and open debate, a history of keeping people largely illiterate...

I don't think anyone would disagree that there is rampant corruption in the Arab world. Is rampant corruption part of culture now? I would have said it was more political... As for the lack of a history of free and open debate...the Arabs had that once. Unfortunately, just as the western world progressed into a new age, the Arab world disintegrated into a fragmented mess. The two aren't entirely unconnected.


And as far as the Palestinians go, they have devolved their culture, their moral values, to the point where they are among the most depraved society on earth. Doesn't mean that they as individuals are in any way inferior, just their culture "stacks the deck" against them.

If "they as individuals" are not inferior, how is it that they themselves "have devolved their culture" into "the most depraved society" on earth? If it is they themselves who were responsible for the "devolving" into this "depraved society" with it's devolved moral values, how can it be "their culture" which "stacks the deck" against them? Logically, since you seem to say they are responsible for their devolved culture, according to you they as individuals are depraved, and thus inferior.

You seem to use culture in a way interchangeable with race.

You see, this is the main point that I have difficulty understanding. I can understand criticizing a way of life, a group of people who identify themselves as a group because they share a certain moral code you may not agree with, but criticizing a group of people, when the only thing that makes them a group, the one thing they all share, is race, and calling this whole group a "depraved society" doesn't make sense to me.

Unless you believe depravity is inherited. Do you?


A Russian thinks he's better than a Korean because he happens to be Russian... he's a racist.

again, no.

No? He is not a racist if he thinks he is superior just because he is Russian?

All right then, let me rephrase that: if a Russian thinks he's better than a Korean, because he happens to be a Russian and therefore his culture is superior to a Korean...according to you he is not a racist?

Just what is it that makes haters of a group think they are better than this particular group? They don't wear a towel round their head, they cut their hair, they don't believe an animal can be sacred or holy, they have perfectly normal festivals...everything that amounts to religion, culture, identity.

If you believe it's perfectly ok for someone to see themselves as superior because they come from a certain culture...do you believe that people are basically equal?

The Arab world may one day develop a distinct culture all its own which does not involve the religious subjugation of women, the oppression of minorities and efforts to stamp out their identities, govenrment corruption and brutality, and the rest.

That has already happened. And it was sort of stamped out.



Zionists see that the rest of the world really doesn't give a damn about the fate of Jewish people living in their midst.

The rest of the world doesn't make a habit of giving a damn about anything, unless it affects the rest of the world in a direct way. As it does America.



basically it is a doctrine saying that only we can protect ourselves, and...we therefore must assert national rights to enable us to protect ourselves the next time anti-semitism turns genocidal.

Only you backed up by America I would imagine.

So...in protecting yourself for the next time...you believe asserting national rights includes banning everyone who is not a member of a specified ethnicity from 93% of the land, while in the same breath blathering on about Israel being the only democratic nation in the whole corrupt middle east, does it?


Never again will the Jews permit themselves to be completely at the mercy of people who view us as 'the other', because the risks to us are simply not worht it.

All people have the right to defend themselves from being completely at the mercy of people who view them as "the other"...
or of being the "most depraved society on earth."
Do you agree?

[Jehan]

Israel spend huge amounts of resources integrating these Jews into its society, and thius affected its values, its culture and the rest. but it was gladly undertaken, because that was what Isarel was created to allow. instead of persecution and genocide, these poeple found a new home. By contrast the Arab world kept the Arabs living in Palestine who had not yet taken to calling themselves Palestinians in squalid camps.

What do you want to hear? Israel treats Jews better than Arab states treat Arabs? I should think that's pretty clear.


I await a clear statement regarding what you think of the fact that 93% of the land in a democratic country can only be used by someone who is a Jew.
Well, most of those lands can't really be used by anyone.

93% of the land can't really be used by anyone? What a waste of space.

Err...the way I see it is most of those lands can't really be used by anyone, except if this anyone happens to be a Jew. Specified in the Jewish National Fund's constitution. Or do you disagree?


Govenrment lands are like that.

Like what? Used only if you can prove you're a Jew?


Govenrment owned national parks (more as a proportion of area tan anywhere alse in the ME) are open to everyone, as are places where government institutions are located, city parks, and the rest.

So…your clear statement is that 93% of the land in Israel is really...national parks?


As far as the rest, such laws are justified when the greater good necessitates it.

What greater good? The greater good of the majority? How is it justified?
I though you said most of the 93% can't really be used by anyone because it's full of national parks, government institutions, city parks and the rest...Israel is pretty unique after all. There can't be many countries that devote that much space to...space.


the Supreme Court has said that the further along the Zionist project has come, the more secure Israel is a s a Jewish state, the leass restrictive it is permitted to be in this regard. So really, it is all about balance.

The thing is...more land is being accumulated all the time for the sole use of one group of citizens of a certain ethnicity in a supposedly democratic country. Of course, it's all about balance, exactly as the Supreme Council said, the sooner all the land belongs to Jews, the sooner Israel is secure, and once Israel is secure, it won't have any non-Jews to restrict. Makes perfect sense.


Some people living there may not like it, but many in Quebec do not like their restricitve laws either. And both can do the same thing - leave.

So it's a case of like it or leave it. If as a Palestinian you like it (you'd have to be crazy) that's what Israel wants, if you leave, that's OK, that's what Israel wants even more.

[Jehan]

each nation needs to protect its ethnic identity...because of superior numbers.

So Israel is protecting it's identity of being a state for Jews all around the world by barring non-Jews from large amounts of land, thus discriminating between it's citizens, because the non-Jews have superiority in numbers? OK.


Now...what gives Israel the right to call itself democratic and deny discrimination?


As for the founding of Israel, Jews moved to a land, established a majority in certain areas, the great majority which they either purchased, or was not privately owned, but instead publically owned - much of the land was not very farmable or valuable in of itself.

Purchased? Using a system of taxation as a lever? Publicly owned? Like the grazing land of the Bedouins confiscated by the British and given to the Jewish as state land "forest"? Of course the land was of little value...it was the return of the original sons which made the land bloom wasn't it?


The Arabs, had they accepted the partition, would have had a massive majority everywhere else in mandatory "Palestine" and thus there would be no issue.

Except for the fact that the Zionists weren't happy with their own portion. As I have already said.
And also...you would still be writing "Palestine"...which according to you doesn't exist, because it's all your homeland, and they are Arab squatters from Egypt and Jordan who jumped into it while you were away on holiday.


The Arabs attempted genocide, and they lost.

There we go again.
The Zionists were intelligent enough to figure out that they cannot get millions of people into a limited amount of space without making sure they set apart a time period during which this space was cleared out, so to speak. You cannot defend Zionism and accuse others of Genocide in the same breath. It really is too much. If anyone attempted genocide, it was the Zionists. Deal with it. Or maybe you have, and it's perfectly OK, because, since they had the British behind them, they won?


We all know how "Palestinians" are treated in other Arab nations. We know that in 1949, Jordan, which could have established a Palestine, didn't, because, in reality, Jordan IS "Palestine."

OK. Let's deal with the Jordan is Palestine stuff.

You say this because the Palestinians really came from Jordan and other Arab countries and jumped into this land, which they shouldn't have done, because it was promised to the Jews, and now they should go back to their own country, which is Jordan, or wherever their ancestors came from when the Arabs first entered Palestine in the 7th century A.D., they should go back to wherever that Arab nation is, because Palestine doesn't exist and because 70% of their roots are one. I say America is Britain. And they're even more non-existent than the Palestinians, because not only did they jump into a country they shouldn't have, they treated the original inhabitants very unpleasantly as well, and so they should go back to their own country, which is Britain, or wherever their ancestors first came from when they first stepped into America, they should go back to wherever that nation is, because America doesn't exist and because 70% of their roots are one.
And once they get to Britain, they should go back to Scandinavia, because that's where the Viking invaders came from.

So...logical.

The Palestinians have their own culture, their own dialect, their own traditions, their own tribes, their own people, their own land. They are not Jordanians and they are not Egyptians. Just because those two countries are close to them does not mean they are the same people. Are the Portuguese and the Brazilians the same? Are the Sudanese and the Ethiopians?
The Palestinians exist. Whether or not this is recognized, it remains true. And of course, since it is not going to be recognized (if they exist Palestine exists, and if Palestine exists, Israel is a colonialist power) we get this clever argument about genetics. After all, if it walks like a Palestinian and speaks like a Palestinian, it better have a set of genetic blueprints to prove it's parents...and it's parent's parent's parent's...were Palestinians, otherwise it isn't... legally and scientifically… a Palestinian.


To people like you, Jehan, I like to remind you....should there ever come a day when Israel is at the brink, even over the brink, of destruction - that same day Mecca, Medina, and every other major Islamic and Arab site - population wise, economic wise, or religious wise, will be destroyed...and unavailable for 10,000 years.

You have made your myth come true.
The Palestinians have become a people without a land.
They cannot answer "Where do you come from?"
You should be happy.

[Independent]

First, if you maintain that all people can integrate into all cultures, why should their culture, any more than their race, prevent integration? Because the way others think is different, or inferior? Their level of morality lower?

If I understand Judaism properly, I believe that Jews who don't live in Israel are less likely to integrate with the people of their host countries because they are, according to their religion, waiting for the Messiah to bring them back to Israel and thus they wear different clothing for the purpose of identifying themselves as the people who the Messiah will bring home.

The fact that the people who live in Israel don't integrate with the indigenous population either means that they are still waiting for the Messiah to bring them home, or the long wait for the Messiah has made integration with other people difficult now that the need for them to be unique is no longer necessary.

[michael]

Still, Michael, you haven't answer my question - ducked it one way, ducked it another, but refusing to answer a direct and simple question. Why is Israel treated differently than every other nation on earth? If it isn't, give me some examples. Afraid of this question, Michael? I would be, as this question exposes you, just as it exposes independent.
I think MGB8 is right with this comment, Israel has been treated differently. It has had unique treatment. It was the first child of the UN, by the GA resolution that recommended partition and later by the official recognition of the new state.
What is often forgotten though, were the conditions to that recognition. One condition, was Israels’ acceptance of the return of refugees – which it officially accepted. It immediately broke this condition, so it’s unique in that it has been in violation of the terms of it’s recognition virtually since its’ inception.

It was also treated differently in how it has defied many UN Security Council resolutions. While many other countries have been subject to sanctions, eg. South Africa and Iraq, Israel has never.







Once again, pre or post UN Charter, give me ONE example of a nation being demanded of it to give up all the lands it acquired in a defensive war.

MGB8 demands an answer to his silly question. The “defensive war” aspect is problematic. Who decides this? Do we ask both sides and see who admits to being the aggressor?

Is WWII an example? Maybe. The Brits, US and Russia conquered Germany. Does Britain remain an occupying power in Germany, or are you sugesting Tony Blair should rush off to Berlin and plant the Union Jack?


A more interesting question MGB8-style is,
‘Give one example of a people who were required to make way for another nation of people who want their own ethnic-majority state, because of the crimes committed against them by a third group of people, in another land’.

In reality, neither question is particularly relevant.

But this is – do people have equal rights or do Jewish people have greater rights?

[michael]

The debate has demonstrated, particularly with regard to land, that Israel has formalized a system of discrimination against non-Jews.

Given this, it’s not at all surprising that Israel has had such difficulty developing a constitution. It was due to be completed in 1948, but is still being worked on.
It’s even less surprising that a definition of citizenship is a particular difficulty. There has actually been some progress made in the last few years, but that may come to a grinding halt with the expected disintegration of the Likud Coalition. One of the reasons that progress had been made was due to the absence of Shas and UTJ from the coalition. It’s possible that they will be needed for a new coalition the way things are going.

In case you don’t know, Shas and UTJ are both religious parties. And quite extreme. They aren’t too keen on democracy and elements within them hope/dream of setting up a theocratic tyranny. Non-Jews would be tolerated, but only as ‘resident aliens’.
Some who are less kind, might describe them as the Jewish Taliban.

The focus on perceived external threats overshadows Israel’s internal problems, which are , I think, much more serious. The first of which is the Palestinian citizens of Israel. They are euphemistically termed the 'demographic problem'. You can imagine the outcry on this forum should France, for example, start talking about the 'demographic problem' of too many Jewish people in France and wondering how to get rid of them. What this really is, is a fear of democracy. Non-Jewish citizens are to be tolerated, but only if they remain a minority.
The second is the relationship between the state and religion. The religious settlers have developed influence that is out of proportion to their numbers because of a strange confluence between the religious fanatics and the ultra-nationalists. They represent, respectively, a messianic Greater Israel and a military one. Up to now, they'v had the same goal- more land. The settlements allowed the IDF to stay in the WB and Gaza post-Oslo, when they would have otherwise had to pull out. But as the Gaza plan has shown, the ideological differences between the 2 camps are coming to light. The religious see no reason to leave even a centimetre of the territories, afterall they were granted by God. Whereas the ultra-nationalists, such as Sharon, see the tactical reality.

Solving the dispute over a Palestinian state might even help with the first of Israel’s internal conflicts, by reducing the influence of the religious settlers.

There is only one caveat I have on the question of equality for all Israeli’s, which is that it’s just as important in a future Palestinian state (if it ever happens) and the other neighbouring states. I have no more liking of an exclusively Arab or Muslim state than I do of a Jewish one.

[avinu613]

Of course people can live on the land if they are willing to live on the land with the people who live there without transfering them to Jordan and by giving them either citizenship or independence. In 1967, Israel attacked other nations, as we can correctly remember, and the war really had nothing to do with the people who lived on the land. Thus, as we can see, if Israel wants to have the land, then it should give the people who live on the land equality and citizenship too. This is only a fair perspective.

You don't need to directly ask for the transfer of Palestinians to Jordan because asking for growing Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territories that are forcing Palestinians to move to Jordan since they can't live in the "holy land" is basically the same thing. One just has to look at the big picture to understand its meaning.

While I'm not a Bush fan, I certainly do hope that Bush will not be remembered forever as the US president who financed racial cleansing.


Lets no lie now. Israel was attacked in 1967 and we all know it. Israel is not occupying that land we all know that too. So why are we buying into the Arab propaganda lies?

Jews have 100% right to all the land of Israel. I ask any one who cares, to sign and pass on the petition to everyone that they know.

We cannot allow 250,000 Jews to be thrown from their homes!

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/eyisrael/petition.html

[Independent]

Lets no lie now. Israel was attacked in 1967 and we all know it. Israel is not occupying that land we all know that too. So why are we buying into the Arab propaganda lies?

Jews have 100% right to all the land of Israel. I ask any one who cares, to sign and pass on the petition to everyone that they know.

We cannot allow 250,000 Jews to be thrown from their homes!

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/eyisrael/petition.html

avinu613, if I am lying then the US Library of Congress is lying because my understanding of history comes from them. Israel was not attacked in 1967 but Egypt was on high alert and closed the straight of Tiran, a disputed territory.

1967 AND AFTERWARD, Library of Congress Country Studies
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+il0034)

Instead of accusing the US government of telling people Arab propaganda lies, please education yourself on the topic. If the occupied territories are not occupied, as you say, then Israel is an apartheid state since many of the indigenous population of "Greater" Israel is denied equality and citizenship.

Now that we understand the situation better, why should Americans support and finance apartheid? Obviously, a two-state solution along the green line or a one-state solution with equality and citizenship for everyone makes much more sense from an American perspective and US tax money should only be used to encourage the practice of racial, cultural and/or religious tolerance and equality.

Given that the 250,000 Zionists immigrated beyond the green line for the purpose of becoming Palestinian citizens, their wish should be granted and they should only return to Israel if they no longer want to become Palestinian citizens. I feel that the mixture of Jews and Palestinians in both Israel and Palestine will be culturally, racially, religiously and economically beneficial to both groups of people.

[Ophra]

The cat out of the corruption bag
By Moshe Elad

In the 11th century the Muslim philosopher Hamad al Ghazali coined the epigram: "One hundred years of tyranny are preferable to one year of chaos." Arab tyrants such as Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, Hafez Assad in Syria, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gadhafi in Libya applied this philosophical approach for years. They preferred to pay the price of tyranny with social backwardness and economic retardation so that chaos would not prevail under their rule. Only Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has "won" his first year of chaos after 10 years of tyranny.

The Oslo agreements were supposed to have been the beginning of the building of the Palestinian state. The unprecedented support given Arafat to build the future Palestinian state is comparable perhaps only to that given by the world to the countries of Europe after World War II. Nevertheless, Arafat has betrayed that support, and the entire band of the leadership at his side has betrayed it, through a destructive strategy built on three pillars, each of which is awash in international financial support: terror, corruption and propaganda in the guise of information.

This is a trinity of which two of the sides, the terror and the corruption, are in a media fog, while the third, the propaganda, is seen by the world in a bright light.

The world has seen the brutal terror from the school of Yasser Arafat. What the world has not seen is how the funds he received to rehabilitate his Palestinian people suddenly changed course. If, for example, Arafat and his cronies had used the money in the proper and responsible way, today every Palestinian in the territories would have a job, a decent place to live and even a small car. Instead, they have thousands of fatalities, an infrastructure in ruins and 60 percent unemployment.

The Palestinians have demonstrated that they have not yet abandoned the armed struggle that began four decades ago and, using the dollars and the euros that were earmarked for purposes of building a homeland, they have funded a brutal terror apparatus. The same world is watching the play of terror, is continuing to attribute it to "the Palestinians' desire to end the occupation" and is turning a blind eye to the fact that money intended for the building of homes and factories has funded Tanzim suicide operations.

The events of recent months have let the cat out of the bag of corruption. It turns out that the "Palestinian Authority" is no more than a filthy economic junta, in which the race to the top pays off handsomely in economic terms. Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia has a monopoly on basic foodstuffs in the PA, Mohammed Dahlan made a fortune from guarding the Karni transit point and military intelligence chief Musa Arafat serves as the strong-arm collector of bank debts.

Furthermore, with European and the Japanese taxpayers' money, the heads of the PA have built themselves economic empires that stand in shocking contrast to the poverty and the misery of life in the Palestinian villages and refugee camps. In the West, it seems, they wanted to rehabilitate Jabalya but instead they rehabilitated Razi Jabali, the commander of the Palestinian police, whose wealth is estimated at millions of dollars.

The third side, the propaganda in the guise of information, is manifested in the figure of Palestinian cabinet member Nabil Sha'ath. When Sha'ath is interviewed on American television he looks more like the president of Harvard University and not like Abu Rami, the Fatah figure who approves terror actions inside Israel, or "Nabil the corrupt," as he is called in Gaza because of the monopoly he made for himself over all the communications and computer equipment that comes into the PA territories.

Protected as he is under the wing of a well-oiled propaganda machine, America and Europe are not taking Sha'ath to task for his involvement in terror and corruption, but are continuing to compliment him for his gracious appearances in the media. This is precisely the essence of the deception. The West is partner to the expensive Palestinian PR campaign, in which media mercenaries create this deceptive show and prevent the possibility of properly understanding what is happening in Ramallah or in Gaza, analyzing it correctly and rectifying what is happening there.

The responsibility for "what is happening there" can be credited above all to the five countries of the European Union (Britain, Norway, Denmark, Holland and Sweden), which are donating millions of euros annually to the Negotiations Support Unit (NSU) - even though the political negotiations with Israel were stopped four years ago; or to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which also gives millions of dollars of the American taxpayers' money to the PA's "scientific academic" apparatus, the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA), so that it can disseminate inflammatory Palestinian documentation that is devoid of any scientific value.

The government of Japan, the Canada Fund, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and many other organizations all need to know, and some of them do know, that through this unsupervised flow of cash and by ignoring the destructive results of its uses, they have sown the seed and now Arafat's subjects are reaping the harvest. The donor countries continue to bear the responsibility that the three-ply Palestinian yarn will not break any time in the near future.

The author is the former governor of Jenin and Bethlehem and head of security liaison with the Palestinian Authority. He is currently a researcher at Haifa University on Palestinian society.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/467521.html

[Independent]

Arab tyrants such as Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt

I don't think that it is correct to describe Gamal Abdel Nasser as being a tyrant. His biography describes him as being everything but a tyrant. But, the criticism of Arafat may be valid and the topic of funding is an important issue on both sides of the struggle.

Biography of Gamal Abdel Nasser:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Nasser.html
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/G/Gamal-Abdel-Nasser.htm
http://www.weltchronik.de/ws/bio/n/nasserG/ng01970a-NasserGamalAbdel-19180115b-19700928d.htm

I mean, the guy fought against corruption and illiteracy while increasing economic growth. Maybe the situation in Yemen qualifies him as being a tyrant?

I think that Moshe Elad is a Retired IDF Colonel who sees things from the perspective of the occupiers and does not understand the perspective of the occupied.

Both Palestinians and Israelis say that part of the blame for the chaos falls on Israel for not cultivating a culture of democracy in Palestinian areas under the Oslo Accords.
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php?artid=9667

[Oh Jerusalem]

I don't think that it is correct to describe Gamal Abdel Nasser as being a tyrant. His biography describes him as being everything but a tyrant.
ty-rant (tie'ruhnt) n.
1. a sovereign or other ruler who uses power
oppressively or unjustly.
2. any person in a position of authority who
exercises power oppressively or
despotically.
3. a tyrannical or compulsory influence.
4. an absolute ruler, esp. one in ancient
Greece or Sicily.
[1250-1300; ME < OF < L tyrannus < Gk tyrannos]


Biography of Gamal Abdel Nasser:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Nasser.html

Opinion about Nasser is sharply divided. His detractors stress his police-state methods

More:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/nasser/

One of Nasser's greatest accomplishments is that he stayed in power for 18 years in the face of a large number of domestic competitors and opponents. However, he did turn Egypt into a police state with censorship

http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/egypt/egypt173.html

The Nasser and Sadat administrations initiated a number of police and law-enforcement reforms. They strengthened police organization and improved public security. According to official statements, the incidence of serious crimes decreased because of these changes. Nevertheless, the tight political security enforced under Nasser created a police state. Although controls were greatly eased by Sadat, widespread dislike of the police persisted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson040202.asp

Are thugs and tyrants like Saddam Hussein a new phenomenon in the Middle East? Once again, almost every atrocity now associated with Iraq could be paralleled under Nasser's Egypt, from a massive secret police to a tribal military clique — even the gassing of fellow Muslims and threats to use such poison against Israel. Well before the Kurdish massacre and the SCUD threat during the Gulf War, Nasser gassed Yemeni villages, and threatened the Israelis with the same — prompting the West Germans (of all people!) to rush 20,000 gas masks to Tel Aviv. Nasser's agents, along with Palestinian terrorists, plotted several assassination attempts against King Hussein of Jordan and organized raids into neighboring countries. His "official" 99.9 plurality in "elections" was about the same margin as Yasser Arafat's and Saddam Hussein's. And any in Syria who thought about returning the Golan Heights in exchange for peace were tried and executed on trumped-up charges of sedition.

I mean, the guy fought against corruption and illiteracy while increasing economic growth. Maybe the situation in Yemen qualifies him as being a tyrant?
Why not!

[Independent]

How is what Nasser did different from what Bush or Sharon is doing? I mean, they all put radical Islamists into jail. Israelis should have actually appreciated what Nasser did and worked closer with him the same way that Arafat needs help fighting against the Hamas.

In Egypt, Sadat's political maneuvers also fostered the growth of Islamist political movements. Nasser's regime had imprisoned many Islamist political leaders in order to curtail opposition, but this repression, in fact, bred more strident opposition. Sadat attempted to use the Islamist opposition for his own political ambitions by abandoning socialist policies and releasing many of Nasser's political prisoners. Ironically, his attempt to court the Islamists proved deadly for him. The infusion of jail-hardened leadership strengthened many Islamist groups, and they began to mobilize against the Sadat regime after its accommodation with Israel and the United States and its failure to follow an Islamist program. Perceiving a threat to his regime, Sadat arrested 1,300 opposition leaders in September 1981. Angered by the arrests and his rapprochement with Israel, radical Islamists assassinated Sadat the following month.
http://www.africana.com/research/encarta/tt_965.asp

[Oh Jerusalem]

How is what Nasser did different from what Bush or Sharon is doing? I mean, they all put radical Islamists into jail. Israelis should have actually appreciated what Nasser did and worked closer with him the same way that Arafat needs help fighting against the Hamas.

Your epidermis is showing.

[michael]

The definition of tryant(no.2), as supplied by OJ, might fit Ariel Sharon rather well.

[Oh Jerusalem]

The definition of tryant(no.2), as supplied by OJ, might fit Ariel Sharon rather well.
Maybe. Can you be specific or is vaguery your fashion?

[michael]

Sharon was all too well aware of the possible consequences of his visit to the Temple Mount in 2000. It was a significant spark that contributed to the second intifiada.

Next, the significant progrees that was made up to Taba in Janaury 2001 was dead as soon as Sharon became PM. His long opposition to the Oslo Accords in no secret. The langauge of force has, is, and will always be Sharons' preferred method of discourse and he wasted no time in putting it into action. He then embarked on a series of assassinations that could only be described as provocative in nature, which on a number of occassions seemed to occur, as if by magic, after lulls in the violence when Palestinian groups were discussing halting attacks.

So of you take yet another definition - "a person who governs oppressively, unjustly and arbitrarily ", I think he fits it quite well.

But Sharon has found his niche, as someone said "most states have armies, but Israel is an army with a state". And who better to lead it.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Sharon was all too well aware of the possible consequences of his visit to the Temple Mount in 2000. It was a significant spark that contributed to the second intifiada.
The usual gibberish, I see.

So, it's tyranical for a Jew to visit the Temple Mount (and we're not talking about Zeus' temple here, are we?).

"Significant spark"? What a funny term! Are you hiding something from the rest of our readers? Was there another spark? More "significant"? Less "significant"?


Next, the significant progrees that was made up to Taba in Janaury 2001 was dead as soon as Sharon became PM.
I suggest you read the newspapers and keep track of your dateline. The Oslo War was started by Arafat in late 2000. Barak was in office - not Sharon.

As has been pointed out over and over again, Taba and the other initiative were dead because the Pals refused to commit to ending their own organized terror - plain and simple.

His long opposition to the Oslo Accords in no secret.
That still doesn't make him a tyrant. Someone trying to shove the failed Oslo Accords down our throats, however, would definitely suit the definition of being tyranical.

The langauge of force has, is, and will always be Sharons' preferred method of discourse and he wasted no time in putting it into action.
Once again, it was Barak who first had to deal with Arafat's Oslo War. He used force, too, but much less and, as expected, without results. Winning a war started and declared by your enemy does not make someone tyranical.

I find it totally unamazing that an anti-semite like you doesn't even think of stating that Arafat is tyranical.

He then embarked on a series of assassinations that could only be described as provocative in nature,
With twisted wordings and inuendos like that, you'll be able to land yourself a job at Reuters or AFP easily.

Again, regurgitating the same slop over and over again.

which on a number of occassions seemed to occur, as if by magic, after lulls in the violence when Palestinian groups were discussing halting attacks.
Give us some examples please. And there are some. I just want you to point them out so we can publicize the folly of your half-truths.

So of you take yet another definition - "a person who governs oppressively, unjustly and arbitrarily ", I think he fits it quite well.
I don't like Sharon at all but, nope, you're as unconvincing as ever.

But Sharon has found his niche, as someone said "most states have armies, but Israel is an army with a state". And who better to lead it.
How poetic. :o

[michael]

I suggest you read the newspapers and keep track of your dateline. The Oslo War was started by Arafat in late 2000. Barak was in office - not Sharon

As has been pointed out over and over again, Taba and the other initiative were dead because the Pals refused to commit to ending their own organized terror - plain and simple.


Helpful advice, but OJ can’t even keep track of my post. Sharon’s visit was in Sept 2000. He was Likud leader at the time and new elections were looming. But if OJ follows the newspapers as closely as he recommends he’d know that Sharon was fending off a possible leadership challenge from Netanyahu at the time and his little walk was to shore up the extremist vote. The consequences were of no concern.

Sharon also made it clear that he would not negotiate with Arafat if he should win.
The negotiations continued up to the end of January 2001 and significant progress to a just settlement was made, despite continuing violence. Meetings were scheduled for after the Israeli elections. Conditional on the new Israeli Government plans, of course. The Taba negotiations could have continued. But Sharon had other plans and as of February, there were dead in the water.






Give us some examples please. And there are some. I just want you to point them out so we can publicize the folly of your half-truths.
This was OJ’s response to my suggestion that Sharon has provoke Palestinian attacks.

One of the more blatant examples was in November 2001. The US was sending 2 envoys to re-kindle negotiations when it seemed that the PA had convinced Hamas to stop attacks inside Israel. One of Sharons’ ‘targeted killings’ took care of that threat. A report in Yediot Ahronot noted,

“Whoever gave the green light for the assassination operation knew full well they are actually breaking, with a single blow, a gentlemans agreement between Hamas and the PA…”
I wonder who might have approved it?

And later Courage to Refuse, a group of dissenters within the IDF, made a statement on the same topic,
“Any suicide attack within Israel…is used as a pretext by Sharon to inflict ever-increasing misery on the 3.5 million inhabitants of Palestine. And if suicide attacks are not forthcoming,you can count on Sharon to provoke them with his so-called ‘targetted killings’.”

[Mediocrates]

.....the mysterious mind of the nefarious Jew who secretly pulls the strings which pulll the strings which does what you don't expect because you expect him to do it....


teehee teehee.


Have you read The Poison Mushroom recently?

[michael]

And don't forget those IDF members, Corage to Refuse, - bloody antisemites for sure!!

[avinu613]

avinu613, if I am lying then the US Library of Congress is lying because my understanding of history comes from them. Israel was not attacked in 1967 but Egypt was on high alert and closed the straight of Tiran, a disputed territory.

1967 AND AFTERWARD, Library of Congress Country Studies
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+il0034)

Instead of accusing the US government of telling people Arab propaganda lies, please education yourself on the topic. If the occupied territories are not occupied, as you say, then Israel is an apartheid state since many of the indigenous population of "Greater" Israel is denied equality and citizenship.

Now that we understand the situation better, why should Americans support and finance apartheid? Obviously, a two-state solution along the green line or a one-state solution with equality and citizenship for everyone makes much more sense from an American perspective and US tax money should only be used to encourage the practice of racial, cultural and/or religious tolerance and equality.

Given that the 250,000 Zionists immigrated beyond the green line for the purpose of becoming Palestinian citizens, their wish should be granted and they should only return to Israel if they no longer want to become Palestinian citizens. I feel that the mixture of Jews and Palestinians in both Israel and Palestine will be culturally, racially, religiously and economically beneficial to both groups of people.


Now here is a few things that you didnt mention:


Anti-Defamation League


Israel did indeed simultaneously attack Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq on June 5, 1967. It had little choice. For weeks leading up to that day, Israel's Arab enemies upped the temperature by amassing troops on the borders of the tiny Jewish state, while threatening murder and mayhem. Consider the following:

May 14, 1967: Egypt's President Gamal Nasser demands the withdrawal of United Nations force--established in 1957 as an international "guarantee" of safety for Israel--from the Sinai peninsula. The UN meekly obeys; the United States and Britain fail to rouse the Security Council to take action.

May 15: Three Egyptian army divisions and 600 tanks roll into the Sinai. World community does nothing.

May 17: Cairo Radio's Voice of the Arabs: "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."

May 18: Voice of the Arabs announces: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

May 18: Nasser announces blockade of Straits of Tiran in the Red Sea, severing Israel's southern maritime link to the outside world. Israel considers the closure an act of war. (US President Lyndon Johnson later says: "If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed.")

May 20: Syria's defence minister (now president) Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..."

May 27: Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

May 30: Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."

May 30: Jordan's King Hussein signs a five-year mutual defence pact with Egypt and the two set up a joint command, making clear its stance in any future conflict.

My 31: Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reports: "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."

May 31: Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."

June 4: Iraq joins Nasser's military alliance against Israel.

June 5: Six Day War begins: Israeli Airforce attacks airfields in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.

[Mediocrates]

avinu613, if I am lying then the US Library of Congress is lying because my understanding of history comes from them. Israel was not attacked in 1967 but Egypt was on high alert and closed the straight of Tiran, a disputed territory.


Please read/google "The Russians Were Coming"

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2000/issue4/jv4n4a5.html

It's only 16 pages, shouldn't be too hard for you. Says you're a liar.

[avinu613]

Please read/google "The Russians Were Coming"

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2000/issue4/jv4n4a5.html

It's only 16 pages, shouldn't be too hard for you. Says you're a liar.

Will you help spread the petition to Bush?

The petition can be read at.
> http://www.PetitionOnline.com/eyisrael/petition.html

[MGB8]

Wow, a congregation of 3 Arabist (or Arab) propagandists...

First to Jehan, sadly the most honest and reasonable of the three...

(1) There was NEVER a STATE or NATION of Palestine. Palestine is a name given by the Romans to JUDEA after the Jews revolted, as punishment for those revolts. Thus, it is a Roman name for a peice of land, but the name has no relation to any group of people. Thus, before the 1950, the term "Palestinian" was used generally to refer to Jews, as Arabs rejected the idea that "Palestine", the area, was separate and distinct from Syria.

(2) By 1948 there were a substantial number of resident Arabs in the area of land (not a nation, not a People).... some long term, multi-generational families, some nomadic families, and some more recent immigrants. They got caught up in the politics of the region - because of instead of accepting a Jewish state on a small swath of majority Jewish, majority Jewish owned land, the Arab nations, young in their own right, attempted to finish what Hitler had started (remember that the Arab leaderships had close ties to the Nazi's). As a consequence of this war, as is the consequence of any war, a large number of refugees were created - both Arab and Jewish. Neither side accepted the return or rights of the other's refugees. The planned nation of Palestine, which never had existed and still has never come to pass, was absorbed by Jordan, another part of the Palestine mandate, which was given to the Hashemites, and the Hussein family in particular, to rule.

Since neither side accepted any peace agreement, the conflict remained a stalemate.

However, the "ethnic swap" that occured between Arab refugees going to Arab nations and Jewish refugees going to the one and only Jewish state is far from Unprecendented in world history - ask the Germans, or the Turks and Greeks, or the Indians and Pakistanis. After all, there is a fundamental difference between what land a family lives on and the rights to sovereignty - sovereignty does not run necessarily with real estate, its a much more complicated manner.

(3) The reality is that Israel exists now, and will not committ suicide. In fact, Israel is so committed to its own survival, that, should Israel, the heart of the Jewish people, be taken from it, Israel, even if its beyond its dying breath, would have to take the heart from their Muslim cousins. Mutually assured destruction. Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa for Mecca, Medina, and all the holy cities and major population and economic centers of the Muslim world. Now, if the Muslim world continues to push the idea, and necessary consequences of the idea, that Israel does not deserve to exist, we will push these two cousins towards this apocalyptic end.

The other option is to find a compromise that meets the needs of both peoples - a place where the Palestinian people, as they have defined themselves, have a home and sovereignty, while Israel maitains borders that do not invite their Muslim cousins to push for the murder-suicde of two great faiths and peoples. That means that any agreement must give Israel borders that offer some modicum of protection against future military and terrorist attacks, as well as no demographic danger.

As for the Pal Arabs, there are a number of possible solutions - a federation of the WB and Jordan, a Pal Arab state in the Sinai, even the Jordan is Palestine option. Some are more attractive to the pal Arabs than others, obviously, but essentially this is about real estate for the Arab side - as a matter of pride and claims of ownership. For Israel, however, the land claims are about prevention of invasion, and survival of Invasion without turning the whole of the middle east into a 10,000 year parking lot.

[MGB8]

Michael,

You are still too much of a coward to answer my question, but I can easily answer yours:

Almost every Arab nation, almost every European nation, Every nation in the Western Hemisphere, and Austalia and New Zealand.

Now answer my question.

[MGB8]

Independent,

You are ignorant, and you are ignorant because you want to be....you have exposed yourself just as surely as Michael has, a person who believes what he wants because he hates Jews.

Egypt had announced its intentions, the genocide of the Jews of Israel, moved its divisions into positions, kicked out the UN peacekeepers, blockaded Israel's main oil port (for a couple of weeks, I believe) to soften Israel up - acts of war. Israel could have ignored these things, like it ignored similar actions in 73 when the Arab cowards invaded on Yom Kippur, the holliest day of the Jewish year, and Israel almost died, or it could have been a responsible nation and responded to an act of war with its own return act. It did the latter.

Meanwhile, Jordan and Syria, neither of whome had to enter the war, ATTACKED ISRAEL, not the other way around, and both lost territory - in particular the WB, which Jordan later renounced.

[Independent]

Now here is a few things that you didnt mention:
Israel did indeed simultaneously attack Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq on June 5, 1967.

There you go, that's better. It's true that it is possible that Egypt might have attacked Israeli. But, we don't really know that. If you look at the situation today, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iran are always talking about attacking each other, but usually it's only Israel that does the attacking.

So, the correct story is that Israel attacked Jordan and Egypt with the excuse that it was going to be attacked, for the same reason that it has often attacked Lebonan, Syria, Iraq and talks about attacking Iran.

One interesting thing to observe is that often when Isreal attacks, it takes the land rather than giving it back.

"In June l967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Menachem Begin New York Times, August 21, 1982

"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." General Yitshak Rabin Le Monde, February 28, 1968

"There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting." General Ezer Weizman Ha' aretz, March 29, 1972

[Independent]

Independent,

You are ignorant, and you are ignorant because you want to be....you have exposed yourself just as surely as Michael has, a person who believes what he wants because he hates Jews.

Why should I believe you and call Menachem Begin a liar? Doesn't the guy deserve our respect? I mean, if he said that if one can't prove that Nasser was going to attack, then one must believe him, right?

[Independent]

Please read/google "The Russians Were Coming"

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2000/issue4/jv4n4a5.html

It's only 16 pages, shouldn't be too hard for you. Says you're a liar.

It is not intelligent to accuse the US Library of Congress as being a liar, in my opinion. Just click on the link and read for yourself.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+il0034)

Here, I'll even help you:

The Soviet Union, wanting to involve Egypt as a deterrent to an Israeli initiative against Syria, misinformed Nasser on May 13 that the Israelis were planning to attack Syria on May 17 and that they had already concentrated eleven to thirteen brigades on the Syrian border for this purpose. In response Nasser put his armed forces in a state of maximum alert, sent combat troops into Sinai, notified UN Secretary General U Thant of his decision "to terminate the existence of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) on United Arab Republic (UAR) soil and in the Gaza Strip," and announced the closure of the Strait of Tiran.

Now, if you believe that the US Library of Congress is telling us lies, then this is an issue that you need to bring up with them. Until you convince them to change their version of history, I'll believe them and not you. As an American, I'm more likely to believe the US government than Israelis, for obvious reasons.

[Oh Jerusalem]

There you go, that's better. It's true that it is possible that Egypt might have attacked Israeli. But, we don't really know that. If you look at the situation today, Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iran are always talking about attacking each other, but usually it's only Israel that does the attacking.
1948 - Arabs attacked Israel
1956 - After numerous Fedayin attacks by Arabs and closing of the Suez Canal by Egypt and blockade of the Tiran Straights by Egypt, Israel attacks Arabs
1967 - after all the Arabs mobilize on Israel's borders and threaten to exterminate the Jews of Israel, Israel attacks the Arabs
1973 - Arabs attack Israel
1982 - After years of Arab terrorist attacks from Lebanon, Israel attacks Lebanon
2000 - Arabfat attacks Israel

You have a loose screw in there somewhere.

So, the correct story is that Israel attacked Jordan and Egypt with the excuse that it was going to be attacked, for the same reason that it has often attacked Lebonan, Syria, Iraq and talks about attacking Iran.
They were serious reasons - not excuses - and that will all of the Arabs attacking and threatening Israel beforehand.

One interesting thing to observe is that often when Isreal attacks, it takes the land rather than giving it back.
I understand that it is quite logical not to return land back to enemies who do not cease to call for your destruction.


"In June l967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Menachem Begin New York Times, August 21, 1982
It's time to put these half-quotes in the garbage, where they belong. I've found this one. Anyone else that can help, it would be greatly appreciated.

Begin's full quote, which is always missing (for some odd reason) from every Arab lover's reference, is:

"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation."

Thus Israel "started" these two wars in self defense, according to Begin. Begin called them wars of choice because the state's existence was not being threatened.

Like all the other Jew hating robots we have here, Independent's post mangles Begin's words beyond belief in an attempt to make Israel the aggressor in the Middle East.

"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." General Yitshak Rabin Le Monde, February 28, 1968
Let's do the same thing here. How about the original Le Monde interview in French, shall we?!

Q. Penser-vous que Nasser a fait semblait de croire a vos menaces parce qu'il cherchait a provoquer la guerre?

A. Je ne pense pas que Nasser voulait la guerre. Les deux divisions qu'il envoya dans le Sinai, le 14 mai, n'aurient pas suffi pour declencher une offensive contre Israel. Il le savait, et nous le savions. Ce fait demontre, a mon sens, que Nasser ne croyait pas vraiment que nous allions attaquer la Syrie. Il bluffait; il voulait se presenter, a bon prix, comme le sauveur de la Syrie et se gagner ainsi de larges sympathies dans le monde arabe. Nous connaissons le stratageme puis qu'il l'avait deja utilise en 1960.... Mais, il y a huit ans, il n'avait pas demande le retrait des forces de l'O.N.U. Cette fois-ci, il a eprouve le besoin de donner plus de credibilite a son bluff. En effet, la propagande des Etats arabes antinasseriens l'avait pousse a bout en l'accusant constamment de "se refugier derriere les forces internationales".

Q. Avait-il, selon vous, l'intention de fermer le golfe d'Akaba a la navigation des bateaux israeliens?

A. Au debut, il avait demande le retrait des "casques bleues" seulement de la portion des frantieres allant de Rafah a , et il suggerait que les soldats a l'O.N.U. soient regroupes a Gaza et a Charm-El-Cheikh (qui commande l'entree du golfe d'Akaba). Malheureusement, M. Thant l'a oblige a choisir: maintenir les forces internationales sur tous ses positions ou, au contraire, demander leur retrait total et definitif. Je crois meme que le secretaire general de l'O.N.U. a rendu publique cette exigence avant meme qu'elle ne parvienne au president Nasser. Celui-ci, pour ne pas perdre la face, a choisi de declencher la crise d'Akaba.

Q. Pourquoi l'a-t-il fait puis qu'il ne voulait pas la guerre et qu'il savait,
de surcroit, que votre armee etait superieure a la sienne?

A. C'est la ou notre logique ne correspond pas a celle des Arabes. Ces derniers font rarement la distinction entre les realities et les reves. Nasser a ete intoxique par la flambee d'enthousiasme populaire dans le monde arabe, ainsi que par sa propre propagande. Il a fini par croire que l'armee egyptienne n'a pas battue en 1956 par Israel, mais uniquement par l'intervention franco-anglaise. Il a alors edifie tout un systeme de pensee, selon lequel Israel ne prendrait l'initiative des hostilities en 1967 puisqu'il ne pouvait compter, comme en 1956, sur le soutien de puissances etrangeres. A en juger par les sept divisions qu'il envoya dans le Sinai, apres le fermiture d'Akaba, il savait pourtant que nous considererions son geste comme un casus belli.



And here's the translation in English:

Q. Do you think that Nasser pretended to believe in your threats because he was seeking to provoke war?

A. I do not think that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent to the Sinai, on May 14, would not have been sufficient to start an offensive against Israel. He knew it, and we knew it. This fact shows, in my view, that Nasser did not really believe that we were going to attack Syria. He was bluffing; he wanted to present himself, at low cost, as the savior of Syria and to thus gain broad sympathy in the Arab world. We were familiar with this strategem since he had already used it in 1960.... But, eight years ago, he had not demanded the withdrawal of the UN forces. This time, he felt the need to give more credibility to his bluff. Indeed, the propaganda of the anti-Nasser Arab states had pushed him by constantly accusing him of "hiding behind the international forces".

Q. Did he intend, in your view, to close the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping?

A. Initially, he demanded the withdrawal of the "blue helmets" only from the portion of the borders from Rafah to [illegible], and he suggested that the UN soldiers be regrouped in Gaza and Sharm-el-Sheikh (which commands the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba). Unhappily, Mr. Thant obliged him to choose: keep the international forces in all their positions or, on the contrary, demand their total and definitive withdrawal. I believe that the UN General Secretary even made this requirement public before it had reached President Nasser. Nasser, in order not to lose face, chose to start the crisis of Aqaba.

Q. Why did he do this if he did not want war and if he knew, in addition, that your army was superior to his?

A. This is where our logic does not correspond to that of the Arabs. The latter rarely make the distinction between realities and desires. Nasser was intoxicated by the explosion of popular enthusiasm in the Arab world, as well as by his own propaganda. He finally believed that the Egyptian army was not defeated in 1956 by Israel, but only by the French-English intervention. He constructed an entire system of thought, according to which Israel would not initiate hostilities in 1967 because it could not count, as in 1956, on the support of foreign powers. However, judging by the seven divisions which he sent to Sinai after the closure of Aqaba, he knew that we would consider his gesture to be a casus belli.


Rabin is saying that Nasser may have been bluffing at first, when he initially sent only two divisions into Sinai (on May 14), but built his forces up to seven divisions after closing the Gulf of Aqaba. What is also always left out from the Arabist manipulated half-quotes was that in Rabin's opinion, Nasser knew that Israel would not attack Sryia.


[I]"There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting." General Ezer Weizman Ha' aretz, March 29, 1972
Anyone who can dig up the rest of the original Haaretz article and put this single out-of-context quote in its rightful place, tizku lemitzvot.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Why should I believe you and call Menachem Begin a liar? Doesn't the guy deserve our respect?
See above.

We're calling you and your ilk liars. Rather obvious, actually.

[michael]

This is a slightly longer excerpt from Weizmans Ha'artez interview. He wasn't the only one hold this position, Reserve Gen. Matti Peled said much the same.

"There is no doubt that the Arabs threatened us with destruction, because they wished it….The heart of the question, however, is aimed at our estimation of the Arabs’ capacity to destroy us. Had the Arabs attacked first, they would have also suffered complete defeat. The only difference is that the war then would have been prolonged; to command control of the air maybe 13 hours would have been needed instead of three….”

Weizmans basic argument was that there was no threat of "destruction" as had often been claimed, but in the interview he sticks to the position that Israel did not cause the 1967 war.

Independants' quotes make his point clearly enough. OJ suggests that the partial quote is misleading, but this is disproved by the rest of the article. Rabin clearly says that Nassers' move was all bluff - "he felt the need to give more credibility to his bluff"

The only problem with using Rabins partial quote is that it refers to the 2 divisions that were moved into the Sinai in May, giving the appearence that Rabin was referring to the situation in June. The 2 divisions may have been insufficient to attack, but as Rabin discusses later, another seven were moved in. This later developement may well change any calculation of Egypts ability to attack Israel.

But, if you read the last sentence again, you'll see that Rabin hints at something odd - "judging by the seven divisions which he sent to Sinai after the closure of Aqaba, he knew that we would consider his gesture to be a casus belli"

Judging by what?? Is it the number?

No. OJ has forgotten to add a rather important piece of information which explains Rabins' comment. The 7 extra divisions were kept several hundred kilometres from the border, that is, in a defensive position. Nasser feared that his brinkmanship may well serve as a casus belli Rabin said. With only the 2 original divisions still at the border, the initial judgement that "two divisions which he sent to the Sinai, on May 14, would not have been sufficient to start an offensive against Israel. He knew it, and we knew it.", remained perfectly true.

Hence Rabins' reference to Nassers' "bluff".

Who is being misleading?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Read it all folks, rather than have to nitpick through Michaels theories and postulations.

It's just unbelievable how history, from less than 40 years ago can be streched and molded into any shape, as if it was silly putty.

Did Israel Want The Six Day War? (http://www.azure.org.il/7-Oren.html)

A long but clarifying read, with precise reference footnotes.

[Gilgamesh]

This is a slightly longer excerpt from Weizmans Ha'artez interview. He wasn't the only one hold this position, Reserve Gen. Matti Peled said much the same.

"There is no doubt that the Arabs threatened us with destruction, because they wished it….The heart of the question, however, is aimed at our estimation of the Arabs’ capacity to destroy us. Had the Arabs attacked first, they would have also suffered complete defeat. The only difference is that the war then would have been prolonged; to command control of the air maybe 13 hours would have been needed instead of three….”

Weizmans basic argument was that there was no threat of "destruction" as had often been claimed, but in the interview he sticks to the position that Israel did not cause the 1967 war.

Independants' quotes make his point clearly enough. OJ suggests that the partial quote is misleading, but this is disproved by the rest of the article. Rabin clearly says that Nassers' move was all bluff - "he felt the need to give more credibility to his bluff"

Prolong war means more dead soldiers, weaker economy. There is a moral duty (in Judaism, not Christianity) to avoid cassulties as much as possible. The imminance of the war was obviouse. All we had to decide is the war's outcome. PM Levi Eshkol done good.

You also ignore the fact, that Jorden attacked us following our pre emptive strike on Syria and Egypt in 67. Jerusalem and the WB were lieberated only following Jorden attack.

Egypt broke it's arms truth treaties, the UN and USA was also side in enforcing and keeping that treaty. The UN and USA decided, from cold war calculations, not to hold Egypt accounatble, not to break the neval blockade put on Eilat, and not to oppose the pouring in and formation of Egyption ground forces in Sinai, which was Resticted. Both powers, UN and USA proved beyonned any doubt that the safty of Israel can NEVER be trusted by them. Israel CAN NEVER trust the UN for our survival.

The quotes of the generals you brought are wisdom of aftermath. These views do not reflect the feelings and prevailing throught of the nation and goverment at the time, which is that Israel faced utter destruction, due to the Arab techonological, economical and numeric extrem advantage over Israel, as well as their Soviet backing while Israel had NO PRACTICLE backing what so ever.

The quotes you brought, are as usual the ideas and feelings of their authors, and must never considered as FACTS. It is a fact the Peled thought this or that at some time. This is FACT. His interpertations and feelings and opinions are highly contraversial and DEBATABLE. There is no truth, in Peled and other generals you quoted, is DEBATEABLE, not facts. Opinions are not Facts. Interpertations are not FACTS.

[michael]

Nice work OJ!

OJ criticises Independants' post as "gargage" and "lies", for partialy quoting Rabin.

However, the full interview only confirms that the selective quote was an accurate sumary of Rabins' statements.

The only person guilty of misleading was OJ, who left out a vital piece of info that made sense of Rabins' reference to the 5 extra divisions.

Having labelled Independant a liar, OJ's response to his exposure - it's just "nitpick[ing]".

No surprises here.

[Oh Jerusalem]

You're right. You're not nitpicking. You're lying again:

from http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/s/si/six_day_war.html]

The Egyptian forces consisted of 7 divisions, five of them infantry and two armored. Four infantry divisions were near the Eyptian-Israeli border in the Sinai, an infantry and an armored division in central Sinai, and a second armored division in the west. In addition, a reinforced brigade (with 200 tanks) under Colonel Shazly was deployed in the southern Sinai with orders to encircle Eilat in the case of war. Overall, Egypt had over 100,000 troops and 1000 tanks in the Sinai, backed by an appropriate number of artillery guns. This arrangement was based on the Soviet doctrine, where mobile armor units at strategic depth provide a dynamic defense while infantry units engage in defensive battles at the border.

Defensive positions? No imminent threat? Try sucking our blood from elsewhere. This vein's dry.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Let's keep rolling. From Israeli Intelligence in the 1967 War (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/intel67.html):

The Soviets probably did not intend war. They thought both Israel and the Arabs would stop short of the brink, but they were wrong. It seems the Soviets completely underestimated Israel's ability and willingness to defend her rights. In a by now rather famous conversation Moshe Sneh (leader of the Israel Communist Party) had with the Soviet ambassador to Israel, Sneh said: "'Israel will win the war.' The Soviet ambassador responded: 'Who will fight? The espresso boys and the pimps of Dizengoff Street?'"

Still, on May 15-16, the Israelis were confident. That changed on May 16, when Nasser asked UN Secretary-General U Thant to withdraw UN forces from the Sinai. U Thant quickly complied, leaving no international forces between Egypt's army in the Sinai and Israel's borders. In fact, the speed with which U Thant complied with Nasser's request may have surprised even Nasser. If Nasser's intentions were only to bluff, then, having gone this far, he could not pull back from the brink for reasons of face.

By May 19 the Egyptians had deployed six divisions in the Sinai. Israeli Intelligence chief Meir Amit "proposed that Israel publish abroad aerial reconnaissance photographs of the massive Egyptian deployment…" with the idea of justifying Israel's mobilization of her reserves, which had begun on May 16. However, the Israeli leadership rejected the suggestion.

On May 20 Israeli Intelligence learned that Nasser had recalled three Egyptian brigades from Yemen. This was ominous. The same day Egyptian forces took over Sharm El-Sheik, at the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula. At midnight on May 22 Nasser announced the closure of the Straits of Tiran, at the entrance of the Gulf of Aqaba, thus closing off Israel's only shipping route through the Red Sea. This was a clear causus belli, which had been understood since 1956 - Israel's shipping routes through the Red Sea would not be impeded.

Military Intelligence Chief Aharon Yariv attended the Cabinet meeting the following morning in Tel-Aviv, with Prime Minister Levi Eshkol present. He announced: "'The post-Suez period is over…It is not merely a question of freedom of navigation. If Israel does not respond to the closure of the Straits, there will be no value to its credibility or to the IDF's deterrent power, because the Arab states will interpret Israel's weakness as an excellent opportunity to assail her security and her very existence.'" He called for immediate military action, as did Air Force chief (and Israel's current president) Ezer Weizmann.

Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin was more reserved but on May 23 he agreed with Yariv's and Weizmann's assessment that Israel should take the initiative and make the first strike. But Prime Minister Levi Eshkol preferred to continue with the diplomatic route, hoping that Western powers would solve the issue.

On May 30 King Hussein of Jordan made a surprise visit to Nasser in Cairo. While there had been a lot of animosity between Nasser and Hussein in the past, they made up and signed a mutual defense pact. Jordan was brought "into a joint military command with Egypt." An Egyptian general was put in command of Arab forces on the Jordanian front.

While Soviet warnings may have preempted the crisis and U Thant's decision to withdraw UN forces upon Nasser's request deepened it, the joint Egyptian-Jordanian military pact made war almost inevitable.

On June 2 the Israeli Cabinet decided in principle on war. The military realized the dangers of waiting any longer: more Egyptian troops would arrive from Yemen, and the Soviet Union would continue with its supply of weapons to Egypt. Moreover, it was understood that the United States and Washington would do nothing to break Nasser's blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba.

More than that, Military Intelligence was also aware of the weakness of Egyptian preparations and morale. Yariv asserted that "the Egyptians were still busy pushing units across the canal and were doing so in such haste that some of their troops had been left without food and water for two days running." Some of them arrived at the front in traditional Arab peasant dress, "as there had not been time to issue them with uniforms."

Mossad Chief Meir Amit returned from consultations in Washington and was convinced that the Americans supported an Israeli first strike. On June 4 the Cabinet decided on war, and on the morning of June 5, the Israeli attack began.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Even avid Israel bashers like NPR can get the most elementary facts straight:

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/history/history4.html

NPR Diplomatic Correspondent Mike Shuster reports on the Six Day War and its aftermath in the fourth segment of the Morning Edition series on the history of the Middle East conflict.

"In 1967, the mood in the Middle East was ugly," Shuster reports. "Israel, independent since 1948, was surrounded by Arab states dedicated to its eradication. Egypt was ruled by Gamal Abdel Nasser, a firebrand nationalist whose army was the strongest in the Arab Middle East. Syria was governed by the radical Baathist Party, constantly issuing threats to push Israel into the sea."

The Israelis attacked Egypt first, on June 5, 1967, in what most historians say was a defensive move. In the spring of that year, the Soviet Union had led the radical government in Damascus to believe that Israel was planning to invade Syria. Syria shared this misinformation with Nasser. The Egyptian leader closed the Gulf of Aqaba to shipping, cutting off Israel's primary oil supplies. He also ordered United Nations peacekeepers to leave the Sinai Peninsula. And he sent scores of tanks and hundreds of troops into the Sinai toward Israel.

Nasser's stature was immediately boosted in the Arab world, says Michael Oren, author of Six Days of War. "He was elevated to almost a god-like status overnight and politically it seemed like a good bargain," Oren says. "The bad news was he wasn't counting on Israel striking back militarily."

After three weeks of internal debate, Israel's leaders decided to attack. In the first day, Israel nearly destroyed Egypt's air force, and struck deep into the Sinai Peninsula, Egyptian territory. After six days of war, Israel had seized all of the Sinai and Gaza from Egypt, the West Bank and all of Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Why not get the mood straight from the camel's mouth!

Statement by President Nasser to Arab Trade Unionists (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/nasser1.html)
(May 26, 1967)

Thank you for this initiative. You have provided me with an opportunity to see you. I have actually heard your speeches and resolutions; there is nothing to add during this meeting to what you have already said. You, the Arab workers' federations, represent the biggest force in the Arab world.

We can achieve much by Arab action, which is a main part of our battle. We must develop and build our countries to face the challenge of our enemies. The Arab world now is very different from what it was ten days ago. Israel is also different from what it was ten days ago. Despair has never found its way into Arab hearts and never will. The Arabs insist on their rights and are determined to regain the rights of the Palestinian people. The Arabs must accomplish this set intention and this aim. The first elements of this aim appeared in the test of Syria and Egypt in facing the Israeli threat. I believe that this test was a major starting point and basis from which to achieve complete cohesion in the Arab world. What we see today in the masses of the Arab people everywhere is their desire to fight. The Arab people want to regain the rights of the people of Palestine.

For several years, many people have raised doubts about our intentions towards Palestine. But talk is easy and action is difficult, very difficult. We emerged wounded from the 1956 battle. Britain, Israel and France attacked us then. We sustained heavy losses in 1956. Later, union was achieved. The 1961 secession occurred when we had only just got completely together and had barely begun to stand firmly on our feet.

Later the Yemeni revolution broke out. We considered it our duty to rescue our brothers, simply because of the principles and ideals which we advocated and still advocate.

We were waiting for the day when we would be fully prepared and confident of being able to adopt strong measures if we were to enter the battle with Israel. I say nothing aimlessly. One day two years ago, I stood up to say that we had no plan to liberate Palestine and that revolutionary action was our only course to liberate Palestine. I spoke at the summit conferences. The summit conferences were meant to prepare the Arab States to defend themselves.

Recently we felt we are strong enough, that if we were to enter a battle with Israel, with God's help, we could triumph. On this basis, we decided to take actual steps.

A great deal has been said in the past about the UN Emergency Force (UNEF). Many people blamed us for UNEF's presence. We were not strong enough. Should we have listened to them, or rather built and trained our army while UNEF still existed? I said once that we could tell UNEF to leave within half an hour. Once we were fully prepared we could ask UNEF to leave. And this is what actually happened.

The same thing happened with regard to Sharm el-Sheikh. We were attacked on this score by some Arabs. Taking Sharm el-Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel. Taking such action also meant that we were ready to enter a general war with Israel. It was not a separate operation. Therefore, we had to take this fact into consideration when moving to Sharm el-Sheikh. The present operation was mounted on this basis.

Actually I was authorized by the (Arab Socialist Union's) Supreme Executive Committee to implement this plan at the right time. The right time came when Syria was threatened with aggression. We sent reconnaissance aircraft over Israel. Not a single brigade was stationed opposite us on the Israeli side of the border. All Israeli brigades were confronting Syria. All but four brigades have now moved south to confront Egypt. Those four are still on the border with Syria. We are confident that once we have entered the battle we will triumph, God willing.

With regard to military plans, there is complete coordination of military action between us and Syria. We will operate as one army fighting a single battle for the sake of a common objective - the objective of the Arab nation.

The problem today is not just Israel, but also those behind it. If Israel embarks on, an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel. I probably could not have said such things five or even three years ago. If I had said such things and had been unable to carry them out my words would have been empty and worthless.

Today, some eleven years after 1956, I say such things because I am confident. I know what we have here in Egypt and what Syria has. I also know that other States Iraq, for instance, has sent its troops to Syria; Algeria will send troops; Kuwait also will send troops. They will send armoured and infantry units. This is Arab power. This is the true resurrection of the Arab nation, which at one time was probably in despair.

Today people must know the reality of the Arab world. What is Israel? Israel today is the United States. The United States is the chief defender of Israel. As for Britain, I consider it America's lackey. Britain does not have an independent policy. Wilson always follows Johnson's steps and says what he wants him to say. All Western countries take Israel's view.

The Gulf of Aqaba was a closed waterway prior to 1956. We used to search British, US, French and all other ships. After the tripartite aggression - and we all know the tripartite plot - we left the area to UNEF which came here under a UN resolution to make possible the withdrawal of Britain, France and Israel. The Israelis say they opened the maritime route. I say they told lies and believed their own lies. We withdrew because the British and the French attacked us. This battle was never between us and Israel alone.

I have recently been with the armed forces. All the armed forces are ready for a battle face to face between the Arabs and Israel. Those behind Israel are also welcome.

We must know and learn a big lesson today. We must actually see that, in its hypocrisy and in its talks with the Arabs, the United States sides with Israel 100 per cent and is partial in favour of Israel. Why is Britain biased towards Israel? The West is on Israel's side. General de Gaulle's personality caused him to remain impartial on this question and not to toe the US or the British line; France therefore did not take sides with Israel.

[Oh Jerusalem]

(continued)

The Soviet Union's attitude was great and splendid. It supported the Arabs and the Arab nation. It went to the extent of stating that, together with the Arabs and the Arab nation, it would resist any interference or aggression.

Today every Arab knows foes and friends. If we do not learn who our enemies and our friends are, Israel will always be able to benefit from this behaviour. It is clear that the United States is an enemy of the Arabs because it is completely biased in favour of Israel. It is also clear that Britain is an enemy of the Arabs because she, too, is completely biased in favour of Israel. On this basis we must treat our enemies and those who side with our enemies as actual enemies. We can accord them such treatment. In fact we are not States without status. We are States of status occupying an important place in the world. Our States have thousands of years of civilization behind them -7,000 years of civilization. Indeed, we can do much; we can expose the hypocrisy - the hypocrisy of our enemies if they try to persuade us that they wish to serve our interest. The United States seeks to serve only Israel's interests. Britain also seeks to serve only Israel's interests.

The question is not one of international law. Why all this uproar because of the closure of the Gulf of Aqaba? When Eshkol and Rabin threatened Syria, nobody spoke about peace or threats to peace. They actually hate the progressive regime in Syria. The United States, Britain and reaction which is the friend of the United States and Britain - do not favour the national progressive regime in Syria. Israel, of course, shares their feelings. Israel is an ally of the United States and Britain. When Israel threatened Syria, they kept quiet and accepted what it said. But when we exercise one of our legitimate rights, as we always do, they turn the world upside down and speak about threats to peace and about a crisis in the Middle East. They fabricate these matters and threaten us with war.

We shall not relinquish our rights. We shall not concede our right in the Gulf of Aqaba. Today, the people of Egypt, the Syrian army, and the Egyptian army comprise one front. We want the entire front surrounding Israel to become one front. We want this. Naturally there are obstacles at present. Of course, Wasfi al-Tall is a spy for the Americans and the British. We cannot cooperate with these spies in any form, because the battle is one of destiny and the spies have no place in this battle. We want the front to become one united front around Israel. We will not relinquish the rights of the people of Palestine, as I have said before. I was told at the time that I might have to wait seventy years. During the Crusaders' occupation, the Arabs waited seventy years before a suitable opportunity arose and they drove away the Crusaders. Some people commented that Abdel Nasser said we should shelve the Palestinian question for seventy years, but I say that as a people with an ancient civilization, as an Arab people, we are determined that the Palestine question will not be liquidated or forgotten. The whole question, then, is the proper time to achieve our aims. We are preparing ourselves constantly.

You are the hope of the Arab nation and its vanguard. As workers, you are actually building the Arab nation. The quicker we build, the quicker we will be able to achieve our aim. I thank you for your visit and wish you every success. Please convey my greetings and best wishes to the Arab workers in every Arab country.

[David_in_NYC]

End the Muslim Occupation of IsraelForum.com!

[Roland]

End the Muslim Occupation of IsraelForum.com!
This belongs into the Religion-section! :D

[Oh Jerusalem]

End the Muslim Occupation of IsraelForum.com!
The word you're looking for is not "occupation".

It's "infiltration". :o

[Roland]

The word you're looking for is not "occupation".

It's "infiltration". :o
Not conspiracy? :eek:

[michael]

Mediocrates (I think) closed the thread in the middle of active discussion. I assume it was because there were too many participants with a different view to the officially sanctioned one.
It can’t possibly have been because the discussion was getting off-track, otherwise the moderators will need to close half the threads on IsraelForum.

But it’s resurrected and I’ll endeavour to get it back on topic.




You're right. You're not nitpicking. You're lying again:

from http://www.campusprogram.com/refere...x_day_war.html]

The Egyptian forces consisted of 7 divisions, five of them infantry and two armored. Four infantry divisions were near the Eyptian-Israeli border in the Sinai, an infantry and an armored division in central Sinai, and a second armored division in the west. In addition, a reinforced brigade (with 200 tanks) under Colonel Shazly was deployed in the southern Sinai with orders to encircle Eilat in the case of war. Overall, Egypt had over 100,000 troops and 1000 tanks in the Sinai, backed by an appropriate number of artillery guns. This arrangement was based on the Soviet doctrine, where mobile armor units at strategic depth provide a dynamic defense while infantry units engage in defensive battles at the border.

Defensive positions? No imminent threat? Try sucking our blood from elsewhere. This vein's dry - Oh Jerusalem


Another opinion on the nature of Egypts positioning in the Sinai belongs to the UNEF Chief of Staff, Indar Jit Rhyker who toured the Sinai in late May, found that the Egyptian forces were not set for an offensive (‘Sinai Blunder’, Maj. Gen. I. Rhyker, p. 168).

Besides the absence of any imminent attack, Weizman and Peled simply confirmed that prior to June 1967 Israel knew it could defeat all the Arab armies easily. US intelligence had also made an assessment prior to June that it would take Israel less than a week to do so, even in the event of simultaneous attack.



But we’ve been through this before. I had a fairly recent discussion with MGB8, OJ, and Abu Afak covered some of these issues, so rather than repeating it all, have a read, it starts here (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=5230&page=3&pp=15)

[michael]

“Michael,

You are still too much of a coward to answer my question, but I can easily answer yours:

Almost every Arab nation, almost every European nation, Every nation in the Western Hemisphere, and Austalia and New Zealand.

Now answer my question” - MGB8
Which was something like – “are there any countries that have had to return land won in a ‘defensive war’”

I answered, but too subtlely for my friend. I asked if the US and Britain are still in possession of Germany. The answer is no. So the answer to MGB8’s question is - yes. But so what?

My irrelevant question to MGB8 was,
“‘Give one example of a people who were required to make way for another nation of people who want their own ethnic-majority state, because of the crimes committed against them by a third group of people, in another land’

And his answer: Australia and NZ? – settlement occured, but there was no ideological movement to establish an ethnically homogenous state. Settlers came from all corners of the globe.

But, in answering “every European nation” he’s partially right.


Which touches on a point relevant to the thread topic.
Zionism was a creation of 19th C. Europe and so took on some of those features such as romantic nationalism. This was the very feature of German nationalism that caused Jews to be treated as second class citizens. They were not of the German nation and so weren’t a legitimate part of a German state. The Zionists adopted this same ideology. A state for Jews and, if possible, only for Jews. This is a perspective that is ripe, as proven in Europe, for the development of discrimination and bigotry.

This European-style bigotry finds it’s expression in the attitude towards the Palestinians, just as it did when European colonizers went on their rampages through Africa, South America and the Pacific. The ‘natives’ can be abused and slaughtered, because they exist at a lower level of humanity. They simply must give way to the higher level of civilization that overtakes them.

But the European style of civilizing is simply no longer possible. I sometimes wonder if this isn’t part of the reason for the pro-Israel/Zionist contempt for Europe - they did it, why can’t we?

Unfortunately, we now live in the modern world and the slaughtering of the natives can no longer be so easily carried out. I think this is a positive development, others seem to chafe at it. Other less effective methods such discriminatory land laws, economic strangulation and other such bureaucratic means must be undertaken in recognition of modern standards (unless you can identify them as terrorists, then barbaric means can make a limited return)

Such views no doubt inform those who are able to post thread titles such as “End the Arab Occupation of The Land of Israel”.
Again, as in other European colonial exercises, a similar range of myths arise. The most common one being that the local population has itself only recently arrived from elsewhere. This was the case in South Africa as well as in Australia, where there’s the odd nutcase expounding their pet theory that the Aborigines were recent arrivals to Australian shores.
In the case of Palestine, the crazies are a significant group, who buttress their myths with pseudo-scholarly works replete with footnotes.
These days it’s not just enough to believe the myth, having a book that proves it, is also necessary.

In some ways Israeli’s sense of undeserved scrutiny is understandable. If they’d done this 200 years ago, nobody would have blinked.

But it’s 2004, and that a people won’t tolerate being treated like dogs in their own land is simply the way it is. The old methods of Europe are no longer acceptable (or am I wrong?).

What is needed is for Zionists to truly show their contempt for Europe by discarding its’ bigoted 19th Century ideals.

[Mediocrates]

Mediocrates (I think) closed the thread in the middle of active discussion. [/url]


It was because it had degenerated into namecalling. I'm sorry if that pisses you off.

[Mediocrates]

You'd be amazed how few people are paying attention to you. So it's not always an efficient thing to keep a thread open for one person to talk to themselves while 90 others personally attack one another. Maybe that's the way they do things down at the Bund. I have no idea.

[michael]

Except you.

The only name calling done was by OJ, who called Independant a "liar".
Wow - tough stuff.

Not even remotely believable.

Thanks for looking out for us, but I think we can manage without your nannying.

[Gilgamesh]

Which was something like – “are there any countries that have had to return land won in a ‘defensive war’”

I answered, but too subtlely for my friend. I asked if the US and Britain are still in possession of Germany. The answer is no. So the answer to MGB8’s question is - yes.
Poland, Check Rupublic, Romania, Russia, France... all but few of European countires holding pre-1938 German territories and of other countries, and in many cases expelled the indigiunos German population. This was a perfect example of achiving lasting peace in Europe through occupation and transfare of war mongering hostile German population.

The entire former east block moved it's borders westward, mostly on German's expance and for a GOOD REASON.

The same reason why Israel should HOLD ON it's lieberated territories and find a way to expal the Arabs one day, for the sole interest of preserving lasting peace.


“‘Give one example of a people who were required to make way for another nation of people who want their own ethnic-majority state, because of the crimes committed against them by a third group of people, in another land’
Following WWII alone:
Transilvania changed hands from Hungaria to Romania. Hungary joined the Nazi axis.
Moldova region, and Basarebia changed hands from Romania to Russia, following Romania deafet in WWII by Russia.
Baltic states got occupayed following their brutal collaboration with the Nazis.
Eastern Poland got swallowed by Russia, including "east Prusia" and the city of kingsberg (now Kaliningrad, fully settled by Russian "settlers").
Sudetian region and other lands formerly of Germany now in Check hands. All "native Germans" expelled by force.
All Germans native to Ukrain were expelled by force.
Regions of the elzas and Loren where occupayied by the French to this day, togather with other chunks of Germany.
American forces are said to leave Germany only on current days.


Zionism was a creation of 19th C. Europe and so took on some of those features such as romantic nationalism. True, but not European imperialism. As the imperialist govern territories which are not theirs.


This was the very feature of German nationalism that caused Jews to be treated as second class citizens. No, it was anti semetism. Unlike the Arabs, Jews hadn't murdered German children in their beds for ideological reasons. Neither did Jews blown themselves up in Germany. Jews in Germany, contrary to Arabs in Israel, Jews were the most contributive element in German society and highly assimilant.


They were not of the German nation and so weren’t a legitimate part of a German state. The Zionists adopted this same ideology. A state for Jews and, if possible, only for Jews. Can you prove this allegation? Zionism calls for demographic superiority, so Jews will not become a minority in their own country. We have no problem with national minorities as long as they keep the peace and obey the laws. This is not the case in Israel, where the Arabs, are a hositle minority taking active part in terrorism against our civilians.

The key difference is, Arabs are REAL enemies, and German Jews were enemies only in Germans anti semetic twisted and perverted minds.

The Germans became RACIST while we Zionist believe in NATIONAL LIEBERALISM. There is a world apart between the two.


This is a perspective that is ripe, as proven in Europe, for the development of discrimination and bigotry. A "Bigotry" you cannot prove. Only cut and paste lunatic allegations of disterb individuals.


The ‘natives’ can be abused and slaughtered, because they exist at a lower level of humanity. In a free market ecconomy the Arabs harm themselves as much as they wish, just they cannot blame us for their poverty of their own making.

There exist poor Jews living in worse conditions then the Arabs.


They simply must give way to the higher level of civilization that overtakes them. We Zionist only take what is already ours.

Which reminds me another huge hole in your theory... 1/2 of all Israeli Jews are decendents of Jews living in 3rd world oppressed by European imperialism and colonialism.


we now live in the modern world and the slaughtering of the natives can no longer be so easily carried out. Are you now talking about Darfur in Sudan? or Chechnia? or Africa in general? \

Cause the only natives who get slaughtered in Israel are Jews, as a result of Arab terrorism.


The most common one being that the local population has itself only recently arrived from elsewhere. I don't have to prove anything. Arabs say so themselves, to whomever is willing to listen.

In most cases, accents and black skin tone (I mean Arican skin tone) prove beyonned doubt their origions of some (the blacks) in southern Egypt and Sudan. Others are Iraqi and Syrian... Arab ideology, both Nasseirst and Islamist belifes in Pan-Arabism. The entire Arab world is remembered to be a broken single empire. Such ideology itself resist any national charestaristics of Arab countries as "Western imperialist propaganda" designed to weak the Arab nation (Ummah).


This was the case in South Africa as well as in Australia, where there’s the odd nutcase expounding their pet theory that the Aborigines were recent arrivals to Australian shores. Jews are something else. There are planty of evidances all over the world about Jewish rightful ownership of the land of Israel. In your case, it's we JEWS who are the Africans and Aborginies.

Our claim is backed by over 4 billions people who follow the monothistic faithes dervied from the Jewish bible.


In the case of Palestine, the crazies are a significant group, who buttress their myths with pseudo-scholarly works replete with footnotes. Canyou debuk such works? Since it looks like science, history and archology work against you... a conspiracy maybe? A Jewish-Zionist conspiracy NOT to rewrite history according to post modern fabs?

These days it’s not just enough to believe the myth, having a book that proves it, is also necessary. Pity you can not prove your wild theoris, michael... (btw, your name has a meaning only in Hebrew... It's a Jewish name coveted and copied by everybody across this planet).


In some ways Israeli’s sense of undeserved scrutiny is understandable. If they’d done this 200 years ago, nobody would have blinked. Even today you can get with much worse things, unless your a Jew. People just cannot stomach Jews who fight back. They feel fear the we Jews will settle an old score with other enemies of ours, once the deal with Arabs is over.

We Jews forget not, and forgive not. We are not Christians to say the least. Our beliefe in justice might lead to places common Jew haters fear to think about. (I web surfed to several hate sites, they fear us... they know their days are numbered, see my sig).


But it’s 2004, and that a people won’t tolerate being treated like dogs in their own land is simply the way it is. The old methods of Europe are no longer acceptable (or am I wrong?). You are perfectly right! Dogs who are sick and mad are shot on the spot so to prevent them from risking human lives. I hope you don't accuse Israel of doing the same to the Arabs... It looks stupid if you do.

I am in perfect agreement with you, this is why Israel do not "treat like dogs" the Arabs.

I disagree with you claiming our land, Israel, belongs to the Arabs. I seems to deny Jews right of self determination and right of self sovereignity.


What is needed is for Zionists to truly show their contempt for Europe by discarding its’ bigoted 19th Century ideals. I can't not as a Zionist, I honestly don't know, how can I highlight anymore my hate and contempt for Europe. I find it odd you accuse me, as a Zionist for loving Europe, me of all people on this board. I often criticized and my posted moderated for my expression of hate to Europe...

It's only prove how funny and twisted your post is...

[Independent]

Going back a few posts, we can see that I made the claim that Israel attacked Egypt in 1967.

After being called a liar by avinu613, I proved my point with a link to the US Library of Congress.

avinu613 then demonstrated to us that Israel did indeed attack Egypt after Egypt made threats towards Israel. While it is true that Egypt may have eventually attacked Israel, Israel actually attacked first, so the position of the US Library of Congress is correct.

However, ignoring this information, Mediocrates accused me for lying even though avinu613 had just demonstrated that my understanding of the information from the US Library of Congress was correct.

MGB8 then joined in by accusing me of being ignorant and a Jew hater by pointing out that Israel considered Egypt's actions as being an act of war, but MGB8 failed to demonstrate that Egypt had attacked Israel because, as avinu613 kindly pointed out, Egypt had not attacked Israel.

Oh Jerusalem, then kindly confirmed my position, with lots of evidence, that Israel did indeed attack Egypt and Egypt had not attacked Israel.

As Michael pointed out, it is interesting to discuss the idea that Egypt might have possibly attacked Israel if Israel had not attacked first. I think that we should focus more on this topic because I'm not yet convinced that Egypt really would have attacked Israel. It is my understanding that Egypt was still discussing the dispute over the Straight of Tiran with the US when Israel attacked.

I think that the language of some here demonstrates the current problems with the "European style of civilizing" where this system is so deeply entrenched in some people that they can't discuss history without their "European style of civilizing" being expressed in their words. Thus, one must ask, how can some Zionists discard the 19th Century ideals which they value so emotionally?

[Independent]

The same reason why Israel should HOLD ON it's lieberated territories and find a way to expal the Arabs one day, for the sole interest of preserving lasting peace.

The main problem with this idea, in my opinion, is global "terrorism". I think that in this situation, the removal of Palestinians from the occupied territories creates a lot of anger around the world which is directed towards Israel and the West. This anger then develops into underground "resistance" against "Western-style" aggressions.

While the international cooperation of military power and intelligence does effectively challenge the "global terrorism" problem, it does not get rid of it and the "terrorist" threat persists. This "terrorist" threat is capable, as we know, of changing to adapt to different situations while using inhumane methods of causing people to suffer, possibly for the purpose of revenging those who have suffered.

It is my opinion that in order to challenge this "terrorism" problem as effectively as possible, one must work with Arabs for the purpose of gaining their respect towards us so that they will help us in reducing this "terrorist" problem. Yet, when we remove Palestinians from the "holy land", this "terrorist" threat becomes a greater issue that needs more than just international cooperation.

[Mediocrates]

Thread is reopened.

[MGB8]

In response to Michael's article:

Israeli general's are noted for both being a little over-confident and saying stupid and unknowable things with 20/20 hindsight. The bottom line is that while it is likely that, given our hindsite, Israel would have won a decisive victory had they waited more, allowed the oil blockade to have a greater impact, and allowed Egyptian air cover for their forces as well as bombardment of Israeli cities, its NOT a certainty - the only near certainty is that more people, Israeli and not, Jewish and Arab, would have died.

However, it was just this type of arrogance by Israel that almost got the country destroyed in the Arab attack on Yom Kippur in '73..."just a bluff" and "we'll win decisively." Had Israel, which had knowledge of the impending attacks in '73, again struck pre-emptively, Israel would have been in a much better state, and much less close to death.

As for Independent, you LIED when you stated that Israel attacked Jordan in the 1967 war. History is clear, Jordan began shelling Israel when they were misinformed by Russia, I believe, that returning Israeli jets were in fact Egyptian fighters - after Israel had BEGGED King Hussein to stay out of the war.

Oh, and Michael is still too cowardly to answer my question, unles I missed something after my last post. Michael, just answer the question - which is no other country which won land in a defensive war has ever had demanded of it the surrender of all the land, much less to a third party, not the party that the land was taken from (although ethnically identical). Just admit it, Michael, and admit that the reason you go after this issue in Israel's case, and not in the case of any other nation that has acquired land via defensive war, is that you on some level hate, or if hate is too strong, dislike, Jews. Admit it Michael - honesty is good for the soul. Independent, the same applies to you. You, of course, are much more transparent in your hatred of Jews - Michael has only thrown out that, unlike other nations which do worse, Israel declares itself a light onto nations (of course, France, Germany, the UK, and the US also declare themselves such lights, and have for some time, and, France in particular, has done much worse, and continues to support much worse actions than Israel has ever committed)...but with the way independent throws around "zionists" - well, we know where he or she is coming from. Just another Jew hater.

In fact, of the 3, sadly, the only person who doesn't seem to inately hate Jews is the Lybian! I have to do some research on the land issues, Jehan, forgive me if I don't take what you say at face value. I will say that I'm fairly certain that Pal Arabs are forbidden from selling land to Jews, and Jews cannot purchase land in most Arab nations....so the sword cuts both ways.

I favor a mutual repaying for provable land losses of ALL refugees, Arab and Jew, from the ongoing conflict.

[michael]

Oh, and Michael is still too cowardly to answer my question, unles I missed something after my last post.

In fact, of the 3, sadly, the only person who doesn't seem to inately hate Jews is the Lybian! I have to do some research on the land issues, Jehan, forgive me if I don't take what you say at face value. I will say that I'm fairly certain that Pal Arabs are forbidden from selling land to Jews, and Jews cannot purchase land in most Arab nations....so the sword cuts both ways.



Yes, MGB8 did miss it.

Posted on the new thread after Mediocre closed this one down (temporarily) last night.
I think he was invoking the "mercy rule" on MGB8s' behalf! :D


And Jehans' posts on Israeli land law are quite accurate. That MGB8 is ignorant of these well known features of systemic discrimination is no surprise.
The capacity of people to be ignorant about things they don't wish to know is boundless, as MGB8 demonstrates.

Later, I''ll post a few examples that demonstrate how these laws work in practice.

[michael]

Now that Mediocre has ceased trying to shut down debates where views he doesn't like dominate, perhaps we should go back to the original thread?

[MGB8]

Which post number, Michael, because I didn't see an answer to the question. I think you are chicken. Just admit your bias Michael, and then we'll show you mercy.

Oh, and Michael, your endorsement of any information automatically makes it suspect, given your history of misleading and dishonest posts. Oh, you are a good spinster, but a deciever none the less. And, of course, the sad part is that you know it, and morally have no problem with it. Like I said, admit your bias so that those you hate may show mercy upon you.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=9735

Mixed Messages On Maaleh Adumim
Sharon government seen as waffling on thriving settlement because of U.S. elections.
Michele Chabin - Israel Correspondent

The nearly completed “07” neighborhood of Maale Adumim boasts large apartments with gardens and parking places.

Maaleh Adumim — When Israeli officials hinted last week that this flourishing 30-year-old settlement located just a few miles northeast of Jerusalem might be left outside the security barrier, Shachar Loshinsky, an educator and mother of four, didn’t panic.

Nor did Loshinsky, 42, a longtime Maaleh Adumim resident, rejoice when Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz visited the community a day or two later and declared that the settlement would indeed be included in the barrier’s perimeter after all.

“I see Maaleh Adumim as part of Jerusalem,” Mofaz told hordes of reporters. “The fence will not be according to the 1967 line. There were reports like this, but they were incorrect.”

Seated in the air-conditioned living room of her comfortable home, Loshinsky, a Modern Orthodox Jew who wears jeans and describes her political views as “moderate,” explained why the government’s flip-flop didn’t cause her a moment’s anxiety.

“Maaleh Adumim is part of the national consensus,” Loshinsky said confidently. “Anyone who talks about moving more than 30,000 people is living in a state of delusion. Maaleh isn’t an outpost. It’s a city located 10 minutes away by car from Jerusalem.”

Loshinsky attributed her government’s waffling to political considerations.

“It’s an election year,” she said of the U.S. presidential vote in November. “It’s hard to take anything that’s said now very seriously.”

Analysts said the mixed messages coming from Jerusalem are partly the result of the pressure both American candidates are placing on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon not to make waves.

According to the Jerusalem Report, Sharon said Sunday that he would not approve building permits for 1,300 new housing units in Maaleh Adumim, Ariel, Beitar Illit and Kiryat Arba, even though the government had endorsed the overall construction plan some time ago.

Sharon reportedly also assured U.S. envoy Eliot Abrams that his government has no immediate plans to build a community between Maaleh Adumim and Jerusalem in order to create “territorial contiguity” between the two.

Dan Schueftan, senior political fellow at the University of Haifa’s National Security Studies Center, said that Sharon “is trying to tread lightly” with Israel’s staunchest ally.

“After what we’ve had at the Hague and the UN decision, the U.S. is the only country that Israel can rely on … So it would be irresponsible for an Israeli prime minister to provoke the Americans in the middle of an American campaign with something not absolutely vital,” he said.

“As long as the Americans don’t try to stop us from proceeding with the wall, it’s a net gain,” said Schueftan, who is known as the father of unilateral disengagement.

Despite Sharon’s assurances related to future building, evidently he has not made any attempt to stop the construction of the huge “07” neighborhood nearing completion in Maaleh Adumim. Neither has President Bush, for that matter.

Located in the eastern part of Maaleh Adumim rather than toward Jerusalem in the west, the gleaming neighborhood is full of Arab workers putting the finishing touches on white stone apartment buildings.

Already home to hundreds of families, the community boasts very large apartments with gardens and parking spaces for less than $250,000. The same apartments in Jerusalem would cost almost twice that amount.

Loshinsky shakes her head over the American government’s most recent pronouncements on settlement construction, unaware of the neighborhood’s construction, which was planned years ago but which required governmental approval when it came time to issue building permits.

“The Americans make it seem like they’re shocked every time a house goes up, but they have satellites that track everything,” Loshinsky said. “They know the first time a pebble was moved.”

If the U.S. administration has remained mum on 07, it’s been a great deal more vocal about the “E1” construction site visible from Loshinsky’s living room window.

From this vantage point, one could see a new road carved into the hillside, as well as trucks going to and from the site.

“They were planning to build a hotel complex,” said Jacob Richman, another longtime Maaleh Adumim resident and creator of the settlement’s Web site (www.jr.co.il/ma). “Right now no one can say for sure exactly what will happen.”

Chezi Zissman, a spokesman for the Maaleh Adumim municipality, told The Jewish Week that “nobody knows what will be. The defense minister told us that we will be located within the fence. He told us that we will continue to grow and develop and possibly build new neighborhoods to make us contiguous with Jerusalem.”

Richman is just as confident that the community will grow and prosper within the security barrier. Driving around the immaculately clean settlement on wide roads bordered by beds of marigolds and date palms, Richman, 45, explains where his faith comes from.

“We have everything you could want here, except for maybe a bowling alley,” he said. “The industrial zone has over 100 companies. We have a swimming pool, a country club, a very large library and a shopping mall. We don’t live in tents or caravans. This is an established Israeli city, not something that popped up, poof, in one day.”

If anything, Richman is even more proud of his city’s ethnic and religious diversity.

“It’s a mixed community. About 20 percent of the population is religious, about 50 percent traditional. About 15 percent are Anglos,” Richman said, using the Israeli term for native English speakers.

Richman, whose accent still betrays the Brooklynite he once was, said, “I’m a city boy but I love it here.”

[MGB8]

Michael,

Once again, you are dishonest in your response to a question, since I asked, was a nation asked to give ALL the land back that it won in a defensive war.

For the US, WWII was only really a defensive war on the Pacific front, and guess what, the US took land and didn't give all of it back! Gasp - hey Michael, your above point was a lie!

As for Britain and WWII, while it was allied to France, it actually declared war on Germany. I'm unsure if FRANCE kept any land, but this is actually besides the point.

No one DEMANDED that these nations give up ALL the land that they won in defensive wars. France really didn't win any land, to begin with. Britain didn't want to occupy France or Germany, and didn't - they are not contiguous areas, and the Brits are seperated by the Channel.

So, my question still stands, despite your strenous attempts to dodge it.

Come on Michael, give me a legitimate parrallel of what the world is asking Israel to do and any other historical precedent. The ones you provided are terrible and fail, if not being an example of dishonesty on your part (although those two things are not mutually exclusive).

Answer the question honestly (I know this is difficult Michael), or admit your dislike of Jews, Michael.


Ah, and onto Liar number two, not nearly as sophisticated as Michael, either. Your new lie, Independent, is in saying that I somehow stated that Egypt attacked Israel in 1967. I did no such thing. Egypt committed acts of war - that's different. JORDAN, however, did attack Israel first in the 6 day war, not the other way around, like YOU, falsely, stated. The WB was taken from a nation that attacked Israel first - although either way, whether in response to an act of war by blockade of an oil port and the expulsion of peacekeepers and violation of armistace treaty, which Egypt did, or by firing first, which Jordan, and I believe Syria also, did, make Israel's war in 1967 "defensive".

And, of course, any statement about "the removal of the Palestinians" is a bogus claim. I've laid out the issue on "Palestine" from the Israeli side - how much of the WB can Israel afford to give up and still maintain a decent level of security, and how to go about doing that in a way, again, that doesn't endanger Israel.

However, the issue from the Palestinian side is WHETHER to abandon the goal of destroying Israel. The demand that Arab refugees AND THEIR CHILDREN AND CHILDREN'S CHILDREN are to be allowed into Israel - that, as Dennis Ross points out, is just code for destruction of Israel. Arafat is unwilling to do so. Half the PA/PLO is also. All of Hamas and Jihad and Hezbollah are unwilling to do so. To grant them a state might well be inviting the apocalypse to the mideast.

After all, once could easily conceive of a scenario where a Pal Arab state is created, the state imports WMD and uses them in a terror attack against Israel, or even just more effective conventional attacks - Israel responds militarily, igniting a regional war where all the peace treaties are thrown out and there's American weaponry on both sides ... Israel is finally overwhelmed by the Arab armies .... the Samson Option is triggered, leading to the Nuclear anhialation of Mecca, Medina, Najaf, Massarah, Damascus, Beirut, Cairo, Amman, Tehran, Rydia, Kuwait, and a couple other sites. Personally, if I was Israel, I'd save a couple out of those 200 or so Nuclear weapons for Paris and Brussels, since should this scenario come to pass, those nation will have been instrumental in creating the situation.

[Gilgamesh]

The main problem with this idea, in my opinion, is global "terrorism". I think that in this situation, the removal of Palestinians from the occupied territories creates a lot of anger around the world which is directed towards Israel and the West. This anger then develops into underground "resistance" against "Western-style" aggressions. 9-11 already happened. I don't suppose there is a possibility of creating "more anger" then what's already exists.

Also, you have to make a choise between short trem solutions and long term solutions.

The lie of which "anger" is the reason for terrorism, was debunked many years ago as Arab propaganda. I am angry, and there are billions of angry people around the world. None of us is responsible for terrorism. Anger is no excuse for terrorism. I don't know how can you dig out excuses for mass murder at all?

There is no acceptable reasoning for murder at point blank a women with her children. There is not such excuse for such a crime, and that what Arabs do to us, repeatedly already.

The fact there is a abb in terrorist onslought against us is the accumelative affect of IDF counter terror campagine. Not a shift in Arab inentions or motvis. Making Arabs "more angry" will not mean increase in terrorism, because they can't mass murder us as often as they wish because of the IDF.


It is my opinion that in order to challenge this "terrorism" problem as effectively as possible, one must work with Arabs for the purpose of gaining their respect towards us so that they will help us in reducing this "terrorist" problem. Yet, when we remove Palestinians from the "holy land", this "terrorist" threat becomes a greater issue that needs more than just international cooperation. Surrender to Arab demands will not reduce terrorism. I chalenge your idea that the reason for terrorism is "disrespect". What you describe is terrorist's blackmail. We will not have it, unless we will be allowed to use similar tactics to those of the Arabs.

[MGB8]

I hadn't realize that Independent had dusted off that old canard. Oh, its poverty too!

Independent, the reason for terrorism is as such:

(1) The Palestinian Arabs have political aspirations, which include the genocide of the Jews, which they are willing to kill for (and die for, if necessary, not as large a sacrifice to their more or less brainwashed footsoldiers, but, otoh, look at how their leadership will do anything to breath another day.....)

(2) The world, including people like you, but especially the Arab world, has made it socially acceptable to target non-combatants, as long as they are Jews (and now Americans, and Spaniards, and Iraqi's who dare believe differently than they do about the design of the future government ...although the last one is wearing very thin on the Arabs - a "good" consequence of the Iraqi war, the beginnings of the deligitimization of terrorism in the muslim Ummah and/or Arab-Muslim Culture)

(3) Israel is restrained in its response to terror unlike the Arab states, which would simply whipe out such populations, as have Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Jordan (unless it leads to civil war or is contrary to the national agenda, which is the case in Saudi Arabia - that's why you see less terror in Arab states although the Jihadi's hate those governments almost as much as they hate the Jews.

That's it...pretty simple. Terror is a particularly evil tool of war, nothing more, nothing less. Its used by "sane" soldiers of that war.

Since you justify terrorism... and I admit, as I always do, that this is not a Jewish (or Zionist) thing to say, but I believe in Poetic justice: "may what you would have befall other befall you and your family;" (read, let those who would justify suicide bombers be themselves victims of such)... the inverted golden rule. I also hope Arafat is killed by a suicide bomber...as that would go a long way in delegitimizing terror.

[michael]

The village of ‘Ayn Hawd gives an example of the use to which the Israeli laws, detailed by Jehan, have been used to attempt to 'cleanse the land of arabs'.

It’s residents were expelled in 1948. Most were expelled outside Israel and can now be found in refugee camps.

One family, headed by Abu Hilmi, who owned land a short distance away, went there waiting for the war to end, so he could then return to his home. Afterwards, he asked to return but was refused entry to his house and village.
Then the 1950 Law of absentee Property was passed, and Abu Hilmi was now officially an “present absentee” with no rights to his house which was about one mile away, or to his land which he had never left at all.
When this happened they decided to stay put and rebuild their homes on the site were they waited the war out. They called the new village ‘Ayn Hawd al-Jadida.

Unlike most of the emptied villages, Israel didn’t bulldoze and dynamite ‘Ayn Hawd , but instead chose to preserve it, in recognition of the many beautiful stone buildings. It was rather bizarrely termed ‘Arab ruins’.

In 1953, Israel turned the original ‘Ayn Hawd into an artists community and renamed it Ein Hod.

So the owners of the new ‘Ayn Hawd set about rebuilding their lives and homes, all within sight of their old homes, which were now occupied by Israeli artists.

Then the notorious 1965 Building and Construction Law was enacted, which, by omitting the new ‘Ayn Hawd from the planning maps, made it “illegal” and thus ineligible for any municipal services – water, electricity, roads, telephones, schools etc. And with the additional threat of demolition as it was now classified as an “illegal structure”. You can’t say that the Israelis don’t have a sense of humour.

And during this time the lands owned by the family were gradually confiscated. The land the new village was on, was then declared a park and a law was passed banning black goats, “which are in fact only raised by Arabs. Since Ariel Sharon was agriculture minister at the time, the ruling is also called ‘Sharons Law’” – (Abu Hilma’s grandson, Abu al-Hayja’)

This decimated their ability to live off their land, so the residents found work at the nearby village of Ein Hod, where they could now work tending the gardens and cleaning the floors of their old homes.

In 1983 the new ‘Ayn Hawd was finally listed for demolition, but the villages got together and formed an association to fight the order. This eventually lead to an Israel-wide group that is involved in protecting the rights of the “unrecognized villages”.

Their persistence and refusal to move, has had some effect- the new ‘Ayn Hawd has a kind of official recognition now, but all the houses are still threatened with demolition as the residents didn’t have building permits.

After 56 years, their struggle to stay on their own land continues. Many have not been so lucky, or persistent.

“I an a native of this land and this is actually my country – the stranger is the one who came from outside and refuses to recognize me. I live in my own country. My people and my ancestors are buried here. I belong to this land. I do feel like a stranger among the Jews, and they feel that I am not of their world. But I am not a stranger to this soil, nor a stranger to this land, which is our land” – Abu al-Hayja’.

[drexpert]

In May 1967, Egypt and Syria took a number of steps which led Israel to believe that an Arab attack was imminent. On May 16, Nasser ordered a withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Forces (UNEF) stationed on the Egyptian-Israeli border, thus removing the international buffer between Egypt and Israel which had existed since 1957. On May 22, Egypt announced a blockade of all goods bound to and from Israel through the Straits of Tiran. Israel had held since 1957 that another Egyptian blockade of the Tiran Straits would justify Israeli military action to maintain free access to the port of Eilat. Syria increased border clashes with Israel along the Golan Heights and mobilized its troops.

The U.S. feared a major Arab-Israeli and superpower confrontation and asked Israel to delay military action pending a diplomatic resolution of the crisis. On May 23, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson publicly reaffirmed that the Gulf of Aqaba was an international waterway and declared that a blockade of Israeli shipping was illegal. In accordance with U.S. wishes, the Israeli cabinet voted five days later to withhold military action.

[Gilgamesh]

The village of ‘Ayn Hawd gives an example of the use to which the Israeli laws, detailed by Jehan, have been used to attempt to 'cleanse the land of arabs'. It's Ayn Hod. An artist village and home for the most extrem of the "peace block", many of the Marxist supporters of Gush Shalom live there. Correct me if I am wrong, Uri Avinery owns a house there. It was the hight of fashion to live there in the 60's. Many people there deny Israel right to exist and support the so called "right of return" to Arabs... but they will never evict their homes for others...

Ein Hod is the perfect demonstration of Israel far left hypocracy.

The rest of your post the standard BS answered and delt with on other threads. Try to do better michael, if you wish to keep talkin to us.

[MGB8]

Please note that most of Michael's sad anecdotes are 50-60 years old and stem from a time of the most perilous time to Israel's existence, the height/hottest part of the conflict, and before the Palestinians recognized themselves, or were recognized by other Arabs, as a distinct group.

At that time, the overall picture was that some Arabs had invaded Israel, causing other Arabs to lose land and flee to Arab sovereign lands, as opposed to Jewish sovereign lands. A similar number of Jews fled or were expelled (as there was no fighting on the Arab sovereign lands in Jordan and Syria and Egypt and Iraq etc.) and lost their land in the Arab sovereign land as they came to live in the Jewish sovereign land.

the Jews said - ok, this is a fact of life, lets move on in our own land. The Arab leaders PREVENTED their Arabs from doing the same, so to prolong the conflict with Israel and extend the aim of the genocide of the Jews and destruction of Israel, which Michael recesutates with every post.

[Batman]

The village of ‘Ayn Hawd gives an example of the use to which the Israeli laws, detailed by Jehan, have been used to attempt to 'cleanse the land of arabs'.

It’s residents were expelled in 1948. Most were expelled outside Israel and can now be found in refugee camps.

One family, headed by Abu Hilmi, who owned land a short distance away, went there waiting for the war to end, so he could then return to his home. Afterwards, he asked to return but was refused entry to his house and village. ............

This part of the information is very disturbing. It is vague and claims that the Arabs were expelled. But that is a lie and even here there is a vague admission that the Arabs left in order to return once the Jews were defeated and "thrown to the sea" as promised by the Nazi supporting Arab leaders who waged war on Israel after the UN declared Israel is a State in 1948.

Your Arab says so:"who owned land a short distance away, went there waiting for the war to end, so he could then return to his home. "

Why did he leave?
Why was he refused?

The Great Arab Refugee Scam (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=6672)

excerpt:
"The Arab "refugees" were not driven out by anyone. The vast majority left at the order or exhortation of their leaders - always with the same reassurance - that it would help the Arab states in the war they were about to launch to destroy the State of Israel. The fabrication can most easily be detected by the simple circumstance that at the time the alleged expulsion of the Arabs by Zionists was in progress, nobody noticed it.

Foreign newspapermen abounded in the country, in daily contact with all sides -and they did in fact write about the flight of the Arabs, but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that the flight was not voluntary. In the three months that the major part of the flight took place, the London Times, a newspaper most notably hostile to Zionism, published 11 leading articles on the situation in Palestine, in addition to extensive news reports. In none was there even a remote hint that the Zionists were driving Arabs from their homes.

Even more pertinent: No Arab spokesman made such a charge. At the height of the flight, the Palestinian Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, Jamal Husseini, made a long political statement (on April 27) that was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress) the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.

Why did they leave? Monsignor GeorgeHakim, then Greek Catholic bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper, Soda al-Janub, in the summer of 1948: "The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly, and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile." The initiative for the flight was indeed no secret. One of the famous American newspapermen of the time, Kenneth Bilby, who had covered Palestine for years, explained the Arab leaders' rationale for the flight in his book New Star in the East, published in 1950: "Let the Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab countries to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea."

There is also the piquant report in the files of the British police at Haifa, of how the leaders of the Jewish community pleaded with the leaders of the Arab community not to leave Haifa, and how the Arabs refused. There is too, in the annals of the UN Security Council, a speech by Jamal Husseini heaping praise on the Arabs of Haifa for refusing to stay put and insisting adamantly on leaving their homes. The British police then kindly provided transport and helped the Haifa Arabs across the Lebanese and Transjordanian borders.

When, four months after the invasion, the prospect of those that fled returning "in a few weeks" had faded, there were some recriminations. Emil Ghoury, a member of the Palestinian Arabs' national leadership, said in an interview with the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph: "I don't want to impugn anybody, but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. "The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem."

The policy adopted inside the country was emphasized by the leaders of the invasion. The prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Said, thundered: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." One of the Arabs who fled later succinctly summarized the story of the refugees in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Difaa: "The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."

[michael]

It's Ayn Hod. An artist village and home for the most extrem of the "peace block", many of the Marxist supporters of Gush Shalom live there........Many people there deny Israel right to exist and support the so called "right of return" to Arabs... but they will never evict their homes for others...

Ein Hod is the perfect demonstration of Israel far left hypocracy.




Gilgamesh makes an excellent point, one that I've made often before but I've never had anyone agree with me!

Despite the endless cries of 'there is no Palestinian peace partner', what Gilgamesh identifies here is the reailty - there is no Israeli peace partner except for a tiny minority who are viewed as "extreme", as Gilgamesh says.

Peace Now are the perfect example (rather than Gush Shalom), lauded as the Israeli peace camp but almost completely rejectionist in their outlook - hence their recent support of Sharon and his 'unilateral disengagment' plan.

That the mainstream Israeli 'peace camp' is a joke and guilty of "hypocracy" has has always been obvious to anyone with the capacity to think for themselves. This group does not want a just peace with the Palestinians, they just want quiet, and if it's Sharons' brutal methods that will achieve it, then that's fine with them.

[michael]

This part of the information is very disturbing. It is vague and claims that the Arabs were expelled. But that is a lie and even here there is a vague admission that the Arabs left in order to return once the Jews were defeated and "thrown to the sea" as promised by the Nazi supporting Arab leaders who waged war on Israel after the UN declared Israel is a State in 1948.

A "vague admission"? Where did I mention "thrown into the sea" that Batman puts in quotation marks?
Pure invention from the caped crusader.

Jewish forces evacuted the village. Abu Hilmi stayed close by so he could return to home once the fighting died dowm. Civilians avoiding conflict in times of war is rather typical.





Why did he leave?
Why was he refused?

As for why they were refused permission to return - that was Israeli policy. Arabs were prevented from returning to their homes when possible. Some did manage, but many others were kept out. The most common method was simply to bulldoze or dymnamite homes so that there was nothing to return to.

The retrospective Law of Absentee Property ensured that they coudn't return. One family member tried agian in 1951, but he was put in jail, so they gave up and decided to make new homes at Ayn Hawd al-Jadida.

[michael]

Please note that most of Michael's sad anecdotes are 50-60 years old and stem from a time of the most perilous time to Israel's existence, the height/hottest part of the conflict, and before the Palestinians recognized themselves, or were recognized by other Arabs, as a distinct group.


I agree with MGB8 that it's a sad anecdote, but a rather common one.

And unlike MGB8s' suggestion, it's not a story from 50 years ago .

It continues today. These same people are still fighting for basic rights. All that they want is to be allowed to live in their current homes, where they have now lived for 50 years, and tohave the same rights as any other Israeli citizen.

[MGB8]

Sigh.... Michael, the sad part is that you are clearly very smart, and yet, for an unnamed reason, you refuse to consider the point of view of the other side, nor to look at the deficiencies of your side. I have very plainly stated the only reason I believe that you could be so willfully blind.

You see, Michael, for every sad anecdote on the Arab side, the actions of which indeed happened 50-60 years ago, even if the person is still alive today, there is a sad anecdote on the Jewish side of the Conflict.

Now, your response to Gilgamesh, that there is no "Israeli peace partner" was another hate filled lie.

The vast majority of Israel, as reported by the Pols, is willing to accept an Arab state, as long as the survival Jewish state is not threatened. Your argument, Michael, is that any Jew not willing to accept the maximalist Pal Arab demands, but instead demanding compromise, is not a peace partner.

The Pal Arabs could have as viable an Arab state on 100% of the WB, 95% of the WB, or 85% of the WB - its just a matter of drawing borders that are contiguous. In any one of those scenarios, a Federation with Jordan is an economic necessity. The refusal of the Pal Arabs to compromise on the issue of land, therefor, is not out of security or necessity or economy, but as an expression of the desire to keep the conflict going to possibly get more land, or destroy Israel.

But, if you are talking about the false "right of return", then you are simply stating that any Jew or Israeli unwilling to committ national (and likely literal) suicide, not willing to at best subject themselves to eventual dihmitude, is not a peace partner.

If that is what you are saying, Michael, and I believe that it is, then you have once again exposed yourself as nothing more than a Jew hater, a modern day Nazi. If that's the case, Michael, admit it. G-d will forgive your sinful nature...or maybe not.

[Independent]

The refusal of the Pal Arabs to compromise on the issue of land, therefor, is not out of security or necessity or economy, but as an expression of the desire to keep the conflict going to possibly get more land, or destroy Israel.

If you want for Palestinians to compromise on an issue, then you have to offer them something other than Camp David or Sharon's Initiative. For instance, offer them something like the Road Map, the Geneva Accords, the Arab Peace Plan or the talks of Taba 2001 and then you'll discover that Palestinians will be willing to compromise. But, as long as Israelis will only accept something like Camp David, then they won't have a negotiating partner because one needs to be willing to negotiate in order to negotiate.

As for the Israeli public, if they want to have a two-state solution, then they need to remove the Likud party from power and vote for someone else to demonstrate such. As long as they vote for the Likud party, then they are demonstrating to the world that public polls are words with no actions.

In my opinion, Israelis are only trying to buy time to build more illegal settlements until Palestinians have been pushed into the dead sea.

[Independent]

In May 1967, Egypt and Syria took a number of steps which led Israel to believe that an Arab attack was imminent..

This information is correct. America and Israel felt that they had a reason for Isreal to declare a war and Israel attacked Egypt based upon this reasoning. Egypt had not declared war and had not attacked Israel. Rather, Israel declared war and attacked Egypt. Thus, it is not correct to say that Egypt attacked Israel. Thus, one must ask, why do many Israeli supporters claim that Egypt attacked when it had not attacked and why did Israel not give back the rest of the "holy land" that G_d gave to Jews at the end the the war? The answer is obvious and simple.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Thus, it is not correct to say that Egypt attacked Israel.
Who said this?

Thus, one must ask, why do many Israeli supporters claim that Egypt attacked when it had not attacked and why did Israel not give back the rest of the "holy land" that G_d gave to Jews at the end the the war?
Where are these many Israeli supporters you speak of?

The answer is obvious and simple.
Ignorance. We're not immune. Neither are you.

[Gilgamesh]

Despite the endless cries of 'there is no Palestinian peace partner', what Gilgamesh identifies here is the reailty - there is no Israeli peace partner except for a tiny minority who are viewed as "extreme", as Gilgamesh says. Well, whether there is or there is not a "peace partner" on the Israeli side is totally dependent on the peace propasition. If "the peace" demands all Jews to convert to Wahabi Islam, then you can forget about peace and you'll find very few Jewish "peace partners". Same goes for Jews losing their rights and freedoms or national sovereignity. For such "peace intiatives" calling for Israel to basicly surrender its freedoms and security... for such, there are no "peace parters".


That the mainstream Israeli 'peace camp' is a joke and guilty of "hypocracy" has has always been obvious to anyone with the capacity to think for themselves. All left is highly hypocritic, not just the Israeli left. You are a great hypociret in my eyes too.
I am no hypocrite, there for I am right on the right who is always right!

[Oh Jerusalem]

the right who is always right!
Wrong! :rolleyes:

[Gilgamesh]

Wrong! :rolleyes:
Those who are wrong, are never right, only my right is really right :)
I am left handed when I write but I am right right which I thing is right, and not just right for me, but absolutley right and universaly right because the left is not right. right?
Eat your heart out, Sir Humphry Appleby... (as played by the late Niegel Howthorn). :)

[Ariksan]

Thus, it is not correct to say that Egypt attacked Israel.

You are walking down the road when suddendly 6 gun totting gangsters appear in front of you - lets call them Mr. "E", Mr. "J", Mr. "I", Mr. "S", Mr. "L" and Mr. "SA". They surround you with loaded guns and scream "you are going to die! You son of monkies and pigs, we will shoot you and take your body and trow it into the sea!"

What are you doing?

A) You let them kill you.
B) You try to defend yourself and attack them in a moment in which they seem unwarily.

[Oh Jerusalem]

You are walking down the road when suddendly 6 gun totting gangsters appear in front of you - lets call them Mr. "E", Mr. "J", Mr. "I", Mr. "S", Mr. "L" and Mr. "SA". They surround you with loaded guns and scream "you are going to die! You son of monkies and pigs, we will shoot you and take your body and trow it into the sea!"

What are you doing?

A) You let them kill you.
B) You try to defend yourself and attack them in a moment in which they seem unwarily.
It would be inaccurate to say that you were attacked, as the word usually implies some form of physical harm, which hasn't resulted yet in your example.

Nevertheless the correct answer is B. Israel did the correct thing.

[Independent]

Who said this?

Where are these many Israeli supporters you speak of?


Read posts other than yours and mine. I have encountered very many supporters of Israel, not only in this thread, who claim that Egypt attacked Israel.

In my opinion, Israel had good reasons to attack Egypt and doing so may have been the appropriate response to the situation, but it's simply not true that Egypt attacked Israel.


Ignorance. We're not immune. Neither are you.

The occupation of Judea, Gaza and Samaria puts Israel into a very difficult situation because of the fact that Israel was the first to use violence which resulted in Israel expanding its borders to include the rest of the "holy land" that G_d gave to Jews. Thus, even though Egypt may have been guilty, it's easy to convince people to believe that Israel is actually guilty, creating negative feelings towards Israel.

Nevertheless, I'm not against the idea of Israel being the first to use violence to occupy the rest of the British Palestinian Mandate. Since the British never gave this land to Jordan or Egypt, the land might as well belong to Israel.

However, the main problem is the people who live on the land. When France took the land of the Elsas and Italy took the land of S. Tirol, the people who lived there became citizens of France and Italy. Unfortunately, the people of Judea, Gaza and Samaria were never given Israeli citizenship which creates a lot of problems in terms of expanding one's borders.

To deal with the situation of the unhappy people of Israel who lack Israeli citizenship, Israel is attemping to force them out of the land of Israel by building Jewish-only settlements. Yet, unfortunately, these people of Israel are using violence to prevent their removal from "greater" Israel and that's a problem indeed especially when combined with international criticism of the forced removal of people.

[Independent]

You are walking down the road when suddendly 6 gun totting gangsters appear in front of you - lets call them Mr. "E", Mr. "J", Mr. "I", Mr. "S", Mr. "L" and Mr. "SA". They surround you with loaded guns and scream "you are going to die! You son of monkies and pigs, we will shoot you and take your body and trow it into the sea!"

What are you doing?

A) You let them kill you.
B) You try to defend yourself and attack them in a moment in which they seem unwarily.

Oh Jerusalem is correct. If they attack you, then you will attempt to defend yourself to the best of your ability. Or, if you have a brilliant plan, you may attack them without waiting to find out if they are really going to attack you. Maybe their threats were just threats and nothing more? Be aware, however, that if you attack them and kill them, then you will be found guilty of manslaughter even if you attempt to claim your innocence by stating that you were verbally threatened.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Oh Jerusalem is correct. If they attack you, then you will attempt to defend yourself to the best of your ability. Or, if you have a brilliant plan, you may attack them without waiting to find out if they are really going to attack you. Maybe their threats were just threats and nothing more? Be aware, however, that if you attack them and kill them, then you will be found guilty of manslaughter even if you attempt to claim your innocence by stating that you were verbally threatened.
Which country has such wicked laws?

[Ariksan]

It is absolutly irrelevant if an Israeli soldier or an Arab soldier pulled their trigger first. The acts of war started way before the first bullets were fired e.g. by the closing of the street of tiran. Not to speak of the many attacks on Israel into Israeli territory by paramilitary militias supported by Egypt which itself could be understood as a decleration of war.

[Ariksan]

Be aware, however, that if you attack them and kill them, then you will be found guilty of manslaughter.

They attacked, although they didn't pulled the trigger yet they started to push you arround (attacks by arab militias on Israel) and denied you to free movement (closure of the street of tiran). And remember, these 6 gangsters also had a history! The very same people cut off your arm 19 years ago (killing 10% of israels population in 47/48). There also was a court order baning them from coming near you (UN troops in Sinai) and just before they surrounded you they threatened a police officer which decided to flee the scene (withdrawing of UN troops).

Who attacked who again?

[Mediocrates]

It's painfully stupid to apply the rules of individual behavior to countries. Extrapolate to the current era and threats of asymmetrical warfare. Would those idiot critics propose that in their own countries the only sensible and legal course of action is to dismantle their own security and intelligence services and just sit around and wait to be blown to bits in order to have a good enough reason to react? Of course not, not if they are rational in the least. Waiting to be exterminated in order to say it's leeeeeeeegalllll to strike back is a silly stupid childish ploy that small children and their mothers use in the playground.

And while we're talking about comparing personal behavior to states how many of you idiot foolish critics would watch a woman get beaten, cut and raped before trying to stop it? I hope it's zero but if it's not then you personally deserve death or Egyptian citizenship.


And by the way if Egypt had won the 6 day war, those same insufferable critics would be crowing at the 'brilliance' of the Egyptians to strike first.

[Batman]

A "vague admission"? Where did I mention "thrown into the sea" that Batman puts in quotation marks?
Pure invention from the caped crusader..
[above, my bold,my color added for emphasis]

WELL, MICHAEL, I DID NOT REALIZE YOU ARE A MOSLEM.
NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY YOUR OPINIONS ARE SO SLANTED. HOWEVER, THERE ARE MOSLEMS WHO AGREE WITH ME AND IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE I POSTED:

The Great Arab Refugee Scam (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=6672) YOU'D SEE THAT THAT YOU ARE REVISING HISTORY - not only that, you are distorting my words 'thrown into the sea' is the well known Arab slogan that for years after 1948 was used to describe what the Arabs planned to do to the Jewish people. The message today is still the same though the slogans may have changed.

--------------------------------------------------------

The Arab in your story can tell the story any way he wants but the facts remain that the Arabs who chose to leave left on the advice of their Arab leaders. Surprised to find out they lost everything -especially the war- and now their Arab leaders won't even let them into their countries and integrate them the 'scam of the Arab refugee ' was started (also by the Arab leaders and the people followed to help themselves.)

The Great Arab Refugee Scam (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=6672)

excerpt:
"The Arab "refugees" were not driven out by anyone. The vast majority left at the order or exhortation of their leaders - always with the same reassurance - that it would help the Arab states in the war they were about to launch to destroy the State of Israel. The fabrication can most easily be detected by the simple circumstance that at the time the alleged expulsion of the Arabs by Zionists was in progress, nobody noticed it.

Foreign newspapermen abounded in the country, in daily contact with all sides -and they did in fact write about the flight of the Arabs, but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that the flight was not voluntary. In the three months that the major part of the flight took place, the London Times, a newspaper most notably hostile to Zionism, published 11 leading articles on the situation in Palestine, in addition to extensive news reports. In none was there even a remote hint that the Zionists were driving Arabs from their homes.

Even more pertinent: No Arab spokesman made such a charge. At the height of the flight, the Palestinian Arabs' chief representative at the United Nations, Jamal Husseini, made a long political statement (on April 27) that was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress) the secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.

ADDITIONALLY YOU NEED TO READ THIS WHICH EXPLAINS WHY THERE ARE SO MANY ARABS LIVING IN ISRAEL!!!!!! if you are in Israel and you go anywhere to Aacco or Jerusalem or any city you see thousands and thousands of Arabs living there!

While over a million Arabs live in Israel today (that is, in Israel itself, exclusive of the Judea Samaria and Gaza) very few Jews are presently able to live anywhere in the Arab world.

OPEN YOUR EYES AND START READING MICHAEL WHATEVER YOUR NAME IS!
I am a very lucky Arab (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?p=109896#post109896)
POST #15:
OR:
I am a very lucky Arab (http://www.standwithus.com/news_post.asp?NPI=93)

EXCERPT:
"My father, Ibrahim, was a very wise man, a learned man, and a man of peace. We had good relationships with our neighbors, Christian, Jew, and Muslim[B] He gathered the entire family and explained why he did not believe it wise to flee, that he did not believe the Jews would mistreat us.

We stayed put. We are still here.

Today I still live in my father's old stone house with my wife and the youngest of our eight children.My older children and my many grandchildren all live nearby. We have never been mistreated, and we are much better off
than those Arabs who fled and who ended up in miserable refugee camps being supported by the UN and charities.

I want you to know what my life is like as an Arab citizen of Israel."

[Oh Jerusalem]

And the Arabs simply adore the charm of our apartheid national health system:

Wounded PA Officials Transferred to Barzalai Hospital (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=67904)
16:16 Aug 25, '04 / 8 Elul 5764

(IsraelNN.com) Senior PA intelligence official Tarek Abu Rajab, who was wounded by gunmen in Gaza this morning, has been transferred to Barzalai Hospital in Ashkelon.

His condition is not known at the time of this report.

[MGB8]

Independent,

Please, quote me where I said EGYPT attacked Israel, as opposed to committed acts of war? Your above quotes are LIES.

Also, I can quote where YOU said that Israel attacked JORDAN, which is also a LIE.

Meanwhile, the stuff you posted about Palestinian willingness to compromise....

First, based on what.... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Second, contrary to historical fact about what happened at Camp David and Taba. Third, contrary to anyone who actually knows the situation, where it has been shown that as long as Arafat is in charge, the Pal Arabs will not give up the goal of the destruction of Israel, meaning no resolution to the conflict. Like Dennis Ross clearly stated, when Pal Arabs came to him and said "Arafat has accepted the Geneva Accords" he replied "No he didn't", and they said, yes he did, yes he did. So Ambassador Ross went through the Accords point by point, and asked, does Arafat accept this as the final resolution of the conflict. To EVERY point, the Pal Arabs had to admit "No."

Please, independent, instead of posting your very much unsupported and ignorant opinions, go and do some real research - start with Dennis Ross's book "The Missing Peace", then go to MEMRI and read some of the things that the Arabs have written in Arabic, as opposed to their english language propaganda, about the conflict.

THEN come back here, and we might be able to have something approaching an intelligent discussion. Or you can do what Michael does, and completely ignore or dismiss anything other than his point of view, the equivalent of an Israeli who says that there were no Arabs in the mandate, they haven't suffered anything, Israel is always perfect, and etc. etc. Although I would say, the basics of the conflict are still simple - Jews and Israel favor Israel's survival and safety, and Arabs (and people like Michael) favor its destruction, steps towards that end, and all the lovely things that come with it - genocide, possible middle eastern nuclear war....wonderful things.

[Independent]

Independent,

You are ignorant, and you are ignorant because you want to be....you have exposed yourself just as surely as Michael has, a person who believes what he wants because he hates Jews.

Egypt had announced its intentions, the genocide of the Jews of Israel, moved its divisions into positions, kicked out the UN peacekeepers, blockaded Israel's main oil port (for a couple of weeks, I believe) to soften Israel up - acts of war. Israel could have ignored these things, like it ignored similar actions in 73 when the Arab cowards invaded on Yom Kippur, the holliest day of the Jewish year, and Israel almost died, or it could have been a responsible nation and responded to an act of war with its own return act. It did the latter.

Meanwhile, Jordan and Syria, neither of whome had to enter the war, ATTACKED ISRAEL, not the other way around, and both lost territory - in particular the WB, which Jordan later renounced.

MGB8, how can you believe that Egypt attacked Isreal when actually Isreal attacked Egypt?

[Independent]

Which country has such wicked laws?

Hmmm.... Let me guess why you don't like the UN.... :)

[Oh Jerusalem]

Hmmm.... Let me guess why you don't like the UN.... :)
No, I'm afraid you don't like standard laws of what constitutes self defense.

[MGB8]

Independent,

I think you may need to learn how to read.

Lets take the quote you cited:


Meanwhile, Jordan and Syria, neither of whome had to enter the war, ATTACKED ISRAEL, not the other way around, and both lost territory - in particular the WB, which Jordan later renounced.

Um.... I didn't see Egypt in that, just Jordan and Syria. Now, are you confused as to whether Jordan and Syria are different nations than Egypt? Certainly, they are both part of the Muslim Ummah and the Arab sub-Ummah, but, as far as I can tell, they are all different countries - different dictators, different territories, in the case of Egypt, a different ethnicity to a large extent.

Stop lying, Independent. Oh, and learn a little about what you opine about...then you might have some credibility....at least move up to Michael's level, who is knowledgable (although a lot seems to be just looking stuff up on Pal Arab jihadi sites) but intentionally dishonest. You both lack knowledge and honesty.... very weak.

[Independent]

Independent,

I think you may need to learn how to read.

Lets take the quote you cited:



Um.... I didn't see Egypt in that, just Jordan and Syria. Now, are you confused as to whether Jordan and Syria are different nations than Egypt? Certainly, they are both part of the Muslim Ummah and the Arab sub-Ummah, but, as far as I can tell, they are all different countries - different dictators, different territories, in the case of Egypt, a different ethnicity to a large extent.

Stop lying, Independent. Oh, and learn a little about what you opine about...then you might have some credibility....at least move up to Michael's level, who is knowledgable (although a lot seems to be just looking stuff up on Pal Arab jihadi sites) but intentionally dishonest. You both lack knowledge and honesty.... very weak.

Fair enough, I misread that one and that's easy given your behavior which decreases my interest in your comments. Now, if you realize that Jordanians are not Egyptians, do you also believe, like many others here that Palestinians are Jordanians? It is true that some Palestinians became Jordanians after fleeing from greater Israel, but what about those that live in greater Israel?

[Independent]

No, I'm afraid you don't like standard laws of what constitutes self defense.

Self defense does not mean attacking others so that one can take their land, or does it?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Self defense does not mean attacking others so that one can take their land, or does it?
No, it doesn't but conquering land may be a result of a successful self defense campaign.

[MGB8]

I appreciate the honesty.


Now, if you realize that Jordanians are not Egyptians, do you also believe, like many others here that Palestinians are Jordanians? It is true that some Palestinians are Jordanians, but what about those that live in greater Israel?

Now, that's a complex question. Are you talking on the national level or ethnic?

Many Palestinians, residing both in the WB and in Jordan (and not in refugee camps) have Jordanian passports, and thus are "Jordanians". About 2/3's of Jordanian nationals would describe themselves as "Palestinians".

However, even that is a loaded question that blurrs important categories. There is NO ETHNICITY that is "Jordanian", and, in reality, there is no ethnic identity of Palestinian, either, but it has come to be used as such. Jordanians come from many different ethnicities and sub-ethnicities - like the Hashemite tribe, which rules Jordan, would be consider an Arab "sub-ethnicity". Palestinians are really just non-Hashemite, non-Druze, non-Bedouin Arabs in the land that was formerly the Mandate of Palestine (which included Jordan, the WB, Gaza, and Israel). That's it.

In a way, you could call "Palestinian" a modern name for a "mut" group of Arabs with no clear sub-ethnic identity, but with some, not necessarily long standing, tie to the land that was the Palestine mandate.

Because the idea of "Palestinian" as this ethnic group is a very recent idea, Israeli Arabs, have only recently, and incompletely, begun calling themselves "Palestinians". Before this, the term Palestinian was much more vague, had once applied to Jews, and in general only had a nationality based meaning - so an Israeli Arab by definition would NOT be a "Palestinian". This is more historically accurate, but you have a point that if a group has found an ethnic identity, to some extent you have to respect it.

Of course, there are no tests of this, for example, to have become (and your descendents become) a Pal Arab "refugee" - UNRWA didn't bother with anything like that - which is good in terms that it spread more humanitarian benefits to people, but politically, this fact is abused and misused.

[Mediocrates]

It doesn't really matte either way. Pinning your hopes of national success on having a single monolithic racial ethnic cultural linguistic religious identity is fascism pure and simple. If that is the Palestinian Arab goal then that is what it will be. It doesn't matter who lives in Jordan the fact remains is that they were given their own country and those are the facts they have to deal with today. To come back and say there is a small subset of Palestinians who don't want to be Jordanian or who don't want to be Egyptian is a good reason to emmigrate but not a reason to carve out yet another country.

[michael]

It doesn't really matte either way. Pinning your hopes of national success on having a single monolithic racial ethnic cultural linguistic religious identity is fascism pure and simple.

You mean like a 'Jewish' State?

[Gilgamesh]

You mean like a 'Jewish' State?

In the Jewish state there is a substational Arab Muslem minority as citizens with pirvaleged rights and ongoing tradition of spitting into the well they drink from.

The Jewish state is the world worst defenition of a facist state, while a independent PA state is the perfect defenistion of a facist state, where Jews are unwelcomes and risk their lives practicing our religious rights.

[michael]

In the Jewish state there is a substational Arab Muslem minority as citizens with pirvaleged rights and ongoing tradition of spitting into the well they drink from.
.

These are some of their "pirvaleged rights",

"The truth is somewhat different. There are a fair number of villages in Israel that have no access to any infrastructure, no roads, electricity or water. They are virtual citizens, living in places that do not officially exist.
The one thing they have in common in that they are Arabs, mostly Bedouin. While it is true that some of the villages in question were built illegally, others have been there for many years, some even pre-dating the state. However because they were never registered in the Tabu (land registry office), and did not fit into the various master plans drawn up over the years. Others are on land expropriated by the state, sometimes dubiously, and the residents have refused to abandon their lands. .......Why illegal Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria do not merit the same treatment that illegal Arab settlements do defies logic. ............
Unequal, unfair and biased application of the law against Arabs is no less a form of bigotry and racism than the same against Jews. Bigotry is bigotry, and racism is racism, and they are all wrong, irrespective of whether the targets are Arabs, Jews, Blacks, or Martians. If unrecognized Arab settlements can be denied access to infrastructure, so can illegal Jewish ones. Anyone saying differently is a bigot and racist " - Ma'ariv

Perhaps the writer doesn't realise that the Arabs are just 'squatters', recent arrivals, having a rest on their journey to somewhere (anywhere!) esle.

[Mira~]

These are some of their "pirvaleged rights",

"The truth is somewhat different. There are a fair number of villages in Israel that have no access to any infrastructure, no roads, electricity or water. They are virtual citizens, living in places that do not officially exist.
The one thing they have in common in that they are Arabs, mostly Bedouin. While it is true that some of the villages in question were built illegally, others have been there for many years, some even pre-dating the state. However because they were never registered in the Tabu (land registry office), and did not fit into the various master plans drawn up over the years. Others are on land expropriated by the state, sometimes dubiously, and the residents have refused to abandon their lands. .......Why illegal Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria do not merit the same treatment that illegal Arab settlements do defies logic. ............
Unequal, unfair and biased application of the law against Arabs is no less a form of bigotry and racism than the same against Jews. Bigotry is bigotry, and racism is racism, and they are all wrong, irrespective of whether the targets are Arabs, Jews, Blacks, or Martians. If unrecognized Arab settlements can be denied access to infrastructure, so can illegal Jewish ones. Anyone saying differently is a bigot and racist " - Ma'ariv

Perhaps the writer doesn't realise that the Arabs are just 'squatters', recent arrivals, having a rest on their journey to somewhere (anywhere!) esle.
It's a little more complicated than that. Social services and infrastructure are also a problem in Jewish development towns in Israel. It may be surprising to some here, but there are poor Jews in Israel too and their communities receive less funding than do the communities in wealthier areas, although overall, even development towns receive more funding than Bedouin villages. Part of this has to do with how housing loans and subsidies are determined, some of which is based on army service. Even with those Arabs who do serve in the army, and many do, most wait longer to apply for housing assistance. Illegal construction in the Bedouin communities is also part of the problem, and part of it is in fact racism, when the villages grow to a certain size and yet still do not receive the official status of similarly sized Jewish towns. Bedouin families tend to have much larger families than Jewish couples and simple economics proves that having more children decreases a household's standard of living. Many community services are determined by tax revenue. This is the case in the United States as well. The Israeli government receives less tax revenue from those communities and so less money gets pumped back into those communities and they end up needing special assistance. Although you would be hard pressed to say that discrimination didn't exist in Israel (let's face it, discrimination exists everywhere in the world) the Israeli government does acknowledge the inequality. It's a matter of applying pressure to the government to come up with solutions to eliminate that discrimination which is needed, not villification. Israel really is a democracy and it's also still a very young country, relatively speaking. It's taken the United States over 200 years to get to where it is today and we still have a ways to go in adressing systemic inequality, but we are heading in the right direction. The key is that the system is designed to enable change. For starters, what I would like to see sometime during my lifetime, is an alternative to army service for Israel's religious and Arab community, whereby they can be "drafted" into an alternative national service for the country that will later on qualify them for the types of special assistance that they are not currently eligible for. There also needs to be something put into place to provide more transparency in the collection and remittance of tax revenue.

some links:

http://www.knesset.gov.il/docs/eng/govt_guidelines2003.htm

http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/cahier/proche-orient/advareport99-en

[Gilgamesh]

These are some of their "pirvaleged rights",


Your accusations were already debunked in many previous posts. Do trouble your self to read the post we write you back.

Rise such points again, once you have some new information or new argument.

[Batman]

These are some of their "pirvaleged rights",

"The truth is somewhat different. There are a fair number of villages in Israel that have no access to any infrastructure, no roads, electricity or water. They are virtual citizens, living in places that do not officially exist.
The one thing they have in common in that they are Arabs, mostly Bedouin. While it is true that some of the villages in question were built illegally, others have been there for many years, some even pre-dating the state. However because they were never registered in the Tabu (land registry office), and did not fit into the various master plans drawn up over the years. Others are on land expropriated by the state, sometimes dubiously, and the residents have refused to abandon their lands. .......Why illegal Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria do not merit the same treatment that illegal Arab settlements do defies logic. ............
Unequal, unfair and biased application of the law against Arabs is no less a form of bigotry and racism than the same against Jews. Bigotry is bigotry, and racism is racism, and they are all wrong, irrespective of whether the targets are Arabs, Jews, Blacks, or Martians. If unrecognized Arab settlements can be denied access to infrastructure, so can illegal Jewish ones. Anyone saying differently is a bigot and racist " - Ma'ariv

Perhaps the writer doesn't realise that the Arabs are just 'squatters', recent arrivals, having a rest on their journey to somewhere (anywhere!) esle.

I BELIEVE YOUR LAST COMMENT IS INCORRECT AND APPARANTLY SQUATTERS CAN REST ON ISRAELI JEWISH OWNED LAND LONG ENOUGH TO STAY!!!

THE SAME RIGHTS SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO JEWISH SETTLERS.

Jewish-Owned, Arab-Squatted Land Sold to Arabs (http://www.israelnn.com/news.php?id=66487)

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem has sold 96 dunams of land (almost 24 acres) to a PA company, a university spokesperson announced this week. The land, sold for $1.1 million, is located in two north-Jerusalem Arab neighborhoods, Beit Hanina and Shuafat, just west of N'vei Yaakov.

Ezra Yachin, a veteran of the Lechi organization and a resident of Beit Hanina since 1968, expressed disappointment at the news. He, his wife and six other Jewish families purchased the building in which they now reside shortly after the Six-Day War. In the ensuing years, Jews moved into 2-3 other locations in the area, but it never fulfilled their hopes of developing into a Jewish neighborhood. Among the original residents was the late Prof. Shabtai Ben-Dov, author of "The Redemption of Israel in the Crisis of the State" and other books.

The land sold by Hebrew University was bequeathed it by Dr. Eli Ben-Hoenig, one of the founders of the National Library in Jerusalem. Over the years, many Arabs illegally squatted and settled on the land, leading the university to try to sell it. Government ministries were contacted and showed interest, but in the end, the "difficulties" - either the Arab squatters, the price, or other - were too strong to overcome.

The property was purchased by a daughter company of the Palestine Housing Bank, which specializes in mortgages - making it likely that proper housing for the illegal Arab occupiers will now be built.

Rabbi Nachum Rabinovitch, Head of Yeshivat Maaleh Adumim, told Arutz-7 that he was "shocked" to hear of the sale:
"We are essentially in a competition over every piece of land [with the Arabs], and this piece was owned by Jews, and it could have and should have remained Jewish. By giving up land like this, we make it harder for us to retain any portion of the Land of Israel. The Torah laws of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael [settling the Land] require us to try to acquire any piece of land - and certainly not to sell... If money was the issue, then it was not a reputable deal... It's true that the difficulties were formidable, but on the other hand, it seems that had this matter been widely publicized, it is likely that the problem could have been solved in a different manner."

Jewish organizations such as Yeshivat Beit Orot, Yeshivat Ateret Cohanim, and Uvneh Yerushalayim are involved in reclaiming Jewish-owned property in several Jerusalem neighborhoods. Chaim Silberstein of Uvneh Yerushalayim (chaim@uvnehyerushalayim.org), says, "It's sad that the property in northern Jerusalem was sold, but the truth is that there are many Jewish-owned lands right around the Old City that are in danger of being lost in the same fashion. What's needed are the financial resources to purchase these lands and preserve them for the Jewish people."

Silberstein also said that the problem of the illegal Arab squatters and structures is a widespread one, and that the municipal and national authorities are not doing enough to counter it: "There are over 10,000 illegally built units in Jerusalem, of which maybe ten are taken down every year."

[michael]

I BELIEVE YOUR LAST COMMENT IS INCORRECT AND APPARANTLY SQUATTERS CAN REST ON ISRAELI JEWISH OWNED LAND LONG ENOUGH TO STAY!!!

THE SAME RIGHTS SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO JEWISH SETTLERS.


I was being sarcastic, though I'm gald to see Batman agrees that the Israeli settlers are indeed 'squatters'.

[Mediocrates]

Your grandmother was a squatter.

[michael]

This an an excerpt from an interesting article that gives a different view on the 'rights' of the settlers to stay on Palestinian territory.

“ ‘You are the founding father of the evil,’ Rabbi Moshe Levinger hurled at an IDF officer 30 years ago after the officer asked him to stop blocking the main road in Hebron outside Beit Hadassah. He shouted and spit, shouted and kicked……

It wasn't the evacuation of Yamit or even an outpost. It was just an attempt to make a legal arrest, to prevent illegal squatting and to simply stop the rioting. Later came Sebastia and the Avraham Avinu neighborhood, and Beit Hadassah and the expansion of the settlements in Samaria of the northern West Bank until the expropriation of property for 'military purposes,' which turned into settlements.
It's a fascinating history, during which the settler culture of violent force was developed. Sometimes the force was hidden from view: political pressure on prime ministers, arm wrestling or threats, and more often it showed as open, brutal and contemptuous force: shooting up Arab homes, throwing hand-grenades or using an ax in the streets of an Arab city. A new life form was created, but as usual life just went on. 'They talk, we act,' was the working slogan of the settlers. They were the fathers of the simple idea that governments only understand force….

They, the government, suddenly want to use force against him. After 37 years of teaching and preaching the use of force, smashing all the rules and breaking any law that did not suit them, they discover that the government has stolen the invention. Save us, they cry to Jews, save us they cry to the leftists - those proud Jews - Sharon intends to use force, Sharon doesn't give a damn about the government, his party, us, who taught him as he taught us how to ignore what we don't like………………

Suddenly they have learned to spell the word "consensus," and even found the word "legitimacy" in the dictionary, a word they had difficulty pronouncing for the last 37 years - evil, bad words, that were never meant for use except to harm the settlers' ability to act according to their latest craziness. Now those words are theirs to grab hold of in an attempt to stop the fall from the mountain top.
Without a consensus, there is no legitimacy to bringing the Jews back from the Palestinian Diaspora, he calls from the top of the mountain…” – Ha-aretz.

[insight]

i agree. But for the rest of the world and in particularely the Arabs, they should be pointing fingers at themselves for stealing Jewish land which is EVEN admitted to in the Koran.

But because everyone in the world is ignoring this Koran truth which supports the Jewish people returning to the land of Israel, the Arabs and the world like to say the Jews stole the land. It's actually the other way around according to the Koran!!!!!!!

I think it is worth repeating since no one is talking about it.

the ARABS AND WORLD SHOULD KNOW:

"God wanted to give Abraham a double blessing, through Ishmael and through Isaac, and ordered that Ishmael's descendents should live in the desert of Arabia and Isaac's in Canaan.

The Qur'an recognizes the Land of Israel as the heritage of the Jews and it explains that, before the Last Judgment, Jews will return to dwell there. This prophecy has already been fulfilled."

good for all of us ......!

and after that the British have made all the borders and kings.......!

Hugs to all of you...!!!

INSIGHT

[davyduke]

How can you Arabs ( Palestinians) occupy Jewish ( Israel) land when the Palestinians are the ones who are occupied by the Israel army. Next you'll tell that the former East Germany occupied the Soviet Union, Poland occupied Germany during ww2, Japan occupied America after ww2 ended,etc. In order for Palestinians to occupy Israel, they need an army. Israel has an army, Palestinians don't. "End the Arab occupation of Jewish land" is the dumbest and inaccuarate phrases ever made. The West Bank and Gaza was never intended to be part of Israel, making the claim that it's Jewish land illegally occcupied by Arabs outrageously false. The post 1967 area was never reconized nor intended to be part of the Jewish state of Israel, then it's not Jewish land. Period. Also, and I'm not supporting terrorists,they suck, but if Arabs really were occupying "Jewish land" why does the Israel' technology and funding far surprass that of Palestinian guerrillia fighters. There's never been a time in history when guerillia fighters were able to be an "occupying Army" unless they defeated their enemies. The correct and truthful remark is "Stop illegal Israel settlement and miliary occupation of Palestinian terrority". To say otherwise is to claim half of Europe occupied the oviet Union during the Cold War.

[minusthejihad]

"davyduke"

How fitting.

[Reffo]

"davyduke" or "Satellite" or "here" or "Jewhater" or whatever name takes your fancy...

Have you heard of UN resolution 242 ? It says, with regards to the land that it conquered (in a defensive war) in 1967, that Israel should return to SECURE AND RECOGNIZED boundries.... You are paying attention ? It says AND not EITHER nor OR it says "AND"........

So, the borders that were acceptable as SECURE by Israel and which Barak tried to offer to Arafat in 2000, were not acceptable to Arafat. In other words, those proposed borders were not RECOGNIZED, are you with me so far ? If yes, then read on, otherwise re-read the above.

On the other hand, the 1967 borders are not considered to be SECURE because at it's narrowest point (right in the middle), the land between the Mediterrenian Sea and the border, is only a few kilometers wide and itwould be easy for the Arabs, through a surprise attack, to cut the country (Israel) into two. That area also happens to be the most populated part of Israel and even if it could be defended, the potential civilian casualties could be very high.

So, because up to now there has been no consensus about what constitutes BOTH Secure AND Recognized boundaries, Israel does not have to withdraw from territories that it occupies, at least not from all of it. It will withdraw from probably most of it once the parties agree on what is both SECURE and RECOGNIZED, Get it ?

[davyduke]

...

[KettleWhistle]

Bill O'Reilly? I thought it was Howard Dean.

And do tell us what makes land taken from Jordan and Egypt (not "Palestine"!) "Palestinian" land, rather than Jordanian or Egyptian.

[davyduke]

"davyduke" or "Satellite" or "here" or "Jewhater" or whatever name takes your fancy...

When you can't argue, you have to say things like that, but whatever takes your fancy.

Have you heard of UN resolution 242 ? It says, with regards to the land that it conquered (in a defensive war) in 1967, that Israel should return to SECURE AND RECOGNIZED boundries.... You are paying attention ? It says AND not EITHER nor OR it says "AND"........

Isn't that one of the two US sponsored UN resolutions Israel keep violating?
By the way, what's the deal with your temper?

So, the borders that were acceptable as SECURE by Israel and which Barak tried to offer to Arafat in 2000, were not acceptable to Arafat. In other words, those proposed borders were not RECOGNIZED, are you with me so far ? If yes, then read on, otherwise re-read the above.

I'm not a fan of Arafart but there's more to that peace deal failing than Arafart. Israel could have given Arafart 100% of the occupied terrority but it wouldn't have matter if "the right to Return" and a future Palestinian state weren't part of the plan.

On the other hand, the 1967 borders are not considered to be SECURE because at it's narrowest point (right in the middle), the land between the Mediterrenian Sea and the border, is only a few kilometers wide and itwould be easy for the Arabs, through a surprise attack, to cut the country (Israel) into two. That area also happens to be the most populated part of Israel and even if it could be defended, the potential civilian casualties could be very high.

Yes "the pre 67 weren't very "secure" which explains how Israel was able to fight and defeat Goliath odds from that "insecure" position. Is it common to deat vastly superior odds three times in a row from an "insecure" position?

So, because up to now there has been no consensus about what constitutes BOTH Secure AND Recognized boundaries, Israel does not have to withdraw from territories that it occupies, at least not from all of it. It will withdraw from probably most of it once the parties agree on what is both SECURE and RECOGNIZED, Get it ?
Spare me your lame attempt to rewrite the Resolution to your liking. Israel settlements never made Israel secure, in fact they have made Israel much more insecure than Israel was before 1967. When does have an occupying force in a foreign terrority make one country "more secure" since those troops can't protect their country itself.