107 replies to this topic

[and then]

Ambush Bug, on 15 October 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

First the Balfour Declaration was made without consulting the Arabs even after the MacMahon-Hussein correspondance. The Arabs also never agreed to the UN 1947 Partition Plan either as they justly felt it was unfair to alot most of the land, the best of the land, to an immigrant minority.

So your point is that Israel is an illegitimate State, or as the Arabs like to say - Zionist Entity.  Fine.  You and they are absolutely within your rights to FEEL about the situation any way you want... But about 6 million Jewish human beings live on the land now, despite multiple attempts to strangle the nascent State in the crib.  They have the best military in the region - one of the best in the world.  They have nuclear weapons.  And most importantly they have an unbreakable will to survive.  The one thing they lack and that the common Israeli seems to want more than anything else is PEACE.  There is a strong peace movement and the government will eventually bow to  pressure by the world again and they will attempt to make the "tough choices" and give the Palestinians a lot of what they desire.  And then the Palestinians who never missed a chance to miss a chance, will start attacking them yet again.   And supporters of the Palis will continue to decry Israeli aggression.  And the really sickening thing is that no one seems to see the end of the season of trouble and what fruit all this is going to bear eventually.

[RavenHawk]

Ambush Bug, on 15 October 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

How does 1,300 years of dominance in Palestine qualify as squatting? Can Native Americans in 1,100 years from now call Americans squatters? And boot us out? Send us to Canada and Mexico to live as refugees?

As was brought out in the Documentary film Al Nakba, Most of the land in Palestine was owned by absentee owners.  Jews came in and started buying up the land legally.  Just because the former legal land owners in the Ottoman Empire either didn’t care or were incapable of removing squatters off of their land does not mean that Jews were under any obligation to continue that policy.  For 1300 years those that would eventually be known as Palestinian never did anything to secure that land for themselves.

Well, if the Native American has the funds available, they could start buying up land and then chase off any one on those lands.  And that would go for the Canadian and Mexican natives as well.  But I don’t see that happening.

Quote

Who is ultimately responsible for the Refugees? Israel is. Israel needs to grant the right of return to the refugees.

Ultimately, it is the Palestinian that is responsible.  They had 1300 years to correct things before the $-hit hit the fan.  Now 20% of the Israeli population is Arab and some of those were able to present a proper land deed.  Israel doesn’t need to grant them anything.  They haven’t earned the right.  To show that they are willing to live as equals.

Quote

Hey, Israel recognized the UN partition not the Arabs. The UN gave Israel 54% of the land, but they took 77% of the land, occupy an additional 22%, and have completely blockaded the last 1% both by sea and land and air.

That’s right, the Arab did not.  Israel was willing to coexist but Islamic doctrine rejected that.  The UN partition is a joke.  Just look at it.  It divides Israel and Palestine into three separate pieces.  There is no way for either peoples to be secure in their own nation.

Quote

These restrictions arent necessary, how about Israel cease its West Bank occupation, tear down and dismantle its 296 illegal settlements, and remove all of more than half a million illegal settlers from the West Bank and East Jerusalem?

There’s no reason?  Before these restrictions, before occupation of the West Bank, Israel had to put up with suicide bombers and rocket attacks.  The only thing Israel can do is to neutralize those threats.  Those threats have been repeated over and over again and Israel reacts just a little bit more severely every time.

[RavenHawk]

Ambush Bug, on 15 October 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

I hate to tell you this but the movie Exodus was pure fiction, adapted from a novel by Leon Uris.

It is full of historical biased distortions and cliche-ridden garbage... if that is the full measure of your Israel/Palestine history. Hahaha!

And the screenplay was written by Dalton Trumbo.  Leon did deep research on the subject as novelists Cornelius Ryan, Tom Clancy, Tom Wolfe, or even Thomas Harlan did for their novels.

It’s not pure fiction.  But it is a Hollywood/dramatic representation of the situation.  Can you not tell between reality and fantasy?  Very much like “The Right Stuff”.  It’s not exactly historical but if you want to relay the general feel of what it was like, you watch that movie.  Movies like this are at a different level than being factually accurate.

But you missed the point.  What Ruth was saying sounded like she was either remembering the movie “Exodus” or that perhaps she was one of Leon’s sources.

[Simbi Laveau]

And these are just the Iran myths . There are 9 for every topic you can think of .Food,health care,medicine,schooling,jobs,name it.

[Yamato]

There was nothing to correct.   The Palestinians were doing just fine.

[and then]

Yamato, on 19 October 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

There was nothing to correct.   The Palestinians were doing just fine.

Imagine the peace and growth they could have had these 60 years had they just compromised instead of retrenched into irreconcilable hatred and venom.  Tragic, really....

[Stellar]

Quote

Imagine the peace and growth they could have had these 60 years had they just compromised instead of retrenched into irreconcilable hatred and venom.  Tragic, really....

Arent you the one always saying you will never compromise with Islam?

[B Jenkins]

RavenHawk, on 15 October 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

And the screenplay was written by Dalton Trumbo.  Leon did deep research on the subject as novelists Cornelius Ryan, Tom Clancy, Tom Wolfe, or even Thomas Harlan did for their novels.

It's not pure fiction.  But it is a Hollywood/dramatic representation of the situation.  Can you not tell between reality and fantasy?  Very much like "The Right Stuff".  It's not exactly historical but if you want to relay the general feel of what it was like, you watch that movie.  Movies like this are at a different level than being factually accurate.

But you missed the point.  What Ruth was saying sounded like she was either remembering the movie "Exodus" or that perhaps she was one of Leon's sources.

Get a clue, never rely on Hollywood for historic accuracy or authenticity. It has a long very lousy record.

I have never read the Leon Uris book and dont care to, because it belongs in the Historical Fiction bookshelves.

Exodus the movie is typical movie propagandist piece made by none other than Jewrywood. Get  a clue and learn some real history.

[B Jenkins]

RavenHawk, on 15 October 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

As was brought out in the Documentary film Al Nakba, Most of the land in Palestine was owned by absentee owners.  Jews came in and started buying up the land legally.  Just because the former legal land owners in the Ottoman Empire either didn't care or were incapable of removing squatters off of their land does not mean that Jews were under any obligation to continue that policy.  For 1300 years those that would eventually be known as Palestinian never did anything to secure that land for themselves.

The Jews only bought and owned 7% of Palestine. The 1947 Partition Plan gave the Jews an additions 48% of Palestine they didnt buy or own.

Quote

Well, if the Native American has the funds available, they could start buying up land and then chase off any one on those lands.  And that would go for the Canadian and Mexican natives as well.  But I don't see that happening.


Ultimately, it is the Palestinian that is responsible.  They had 1300 years to correct things before the $-hit hit the fan.  Now 20% of the Israeli population is Arab and some of those were able to present a proper land deed.  Israel doesn't need to grant them anything.  They haven't earned the right.  To show that they are willing to live as equals.

Hey wait a minute, the Jews possessed land deeds to 7% of Palestine, and they were the immigrants.

Quote

That's right, the Arab did not.  Israel was willing to coexist but Islamic doctrine rejected that.  The UN partition is a joke.  Just look at it.  It divides Israel and Palestine into three separate pieces.  There is no way for either peoples to be secure in their own nation.


There's no reason?  Before these restrictions, before occupation of the West Bank, Israel had to put up with suicide bombers and rocket attacks.  The only thing Israel can do is to neutralize those threats.  Those threats have been repeated over and over again and Israel reacts just a little bit more severely every time.

The Arab Palestinians fully agree with you 100% in that the Partition Plan was a joke HOWEVER the Zionist disagreed with you. Hmmm... isnt that interesting. Most of your post is spewing out alot myths without a clue about the border aggravations Israel pulled against its neighboring Arab countries throughout the 50s and 60s IN ORDER to justify further aggression and war.

[and then]

Stellar, on 20 October 2012 - 02:09 AM, said:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]
Arent you the one always saying you will never compromise with Islam?

No I do not say that.  I said Islam doesn't compromise.  The problem here Stellar is that folks make it personal with me, I think because I am a Zionist, and assume all sorts of things rather than just read my words.  I didn't just wake up one day and decide to hate anyone.  I don't hate Muslims.  But if you actually read the Qur'an and some of the Hadith you begin to understand that those who struck the West are not really extremists - they are just the more devout and literal of their faith.  IOW they actually put the faith into practice as true believers.  As a Christian my Bible tells me (and I believe enough to die for the knowledge) that Jesus is "the way, the truth and the life and NO ONE comes to God except through Him".  A devout Muslim believes that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is his messenger. That Mohammad's life was perfect and worthy of emulation.  ANYTHING Muhammad did in life is perfect and Muhammad called on the faithful to kill a LOT of people - never compromising except to gain greater victories down the road....
What I said in that post was in response to Yam's little video of how peaceful and productive Palestine was prior to the influx of mostly European Jewry in 1948.  I was pointing out that the Palestinians could have had peace and prosperity for many of these intervening 6 decades had they been willing to compromise and live side by side with the Israelis.  They simply can not and will not ever do it before Christ returns to rule here on this planet.  I think my problem is that since I actually DO believe in the eschatology of the Bible I am convinced that all these things are happening for a reason and are happening now because the time is nearly here.  Not next month or even next year probably but here in ways it never has been in my lifetime and I HAVE been watching the signs.

[RavenHawk]

Ambush Bug, on 20 October 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:

Get a clue, never rely on Hollywood for historic accuracy or authenticity. It has a long very lousy record.

I’m the one with the clue (obviously) but it seems that I can’t even give it away.  That’s what I was implying.  But also, it is usually based on fact.  You need to be able to discern fact from fiction.  Which you don’t seem to want to do because you get confused.

Quote

I have never read the Leon Uris book and dont care to, because it belongs in the Historical Fiction bookshelves.

Yes, historical fiction, not fantasy.  I.e. a love story wrapped in the actual events of the time.  He had spent years researching and interviewing people on the events.  He knew what he was talking about.

Quote

Exodus the movie is typical movie propagandist piece made by none other than Jewrywood. Get  a clue and learn some real history.

Sigh!  Why do you think I told you the screen play was done by Dalton Trumbo?  He was one of the Hollywood 10.  He was an admitted Communist.  His treatment of the story had a Communist spin to it.  It’s interesting to note that in the day, the Jew was the underdog and now today, the Palestinian holds the Communist eye.  But my point was that what Ruth Dayan was saying sounded like it came directly from Leon Uris.  Either she was pulling from the book or she was one of the sources.  Listening to the way she spoke sounded like she was a Communist.  I would live to read his novel and compare it to the movie.  I’m sure you’ll find differences.  But the main things probably are constant.

[B Jenkins]

RavenHawk, on 21 October 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

I'm the one with the clue (obviously) but it seems that I can't even give it away.  That's what I was implying.  But also, it is usually based on fact.  You need to be able to discern fact from fiction.  Which you don't seem to want to do because you get confused.


Yes, historical fiction, not fantasy.  I.e. a love story wrapped in the actual events of the time.  He had spent years researching and interviewing people on the events.  He knew what he was talking about.


Sigh!  Why do you think I told you the screen play was done by Dalton Trumbo?  He was one of the Hollywood 10.  He was an admitted Communist.  His treatment of the story had a Communist spin to it.  It's interesting to note that in the day, the Jew was the underdog and now today, the Palestinian holds the Communist eye.  But my point was that what Ruth Dayan was saying sounded like it came directly from Leon Uris.  Either she was pulling from the book or she was one of the sources.  Listening to the way she spoke sounded like she was a Communist.  I would live to read his novel and compare it to the movie.  I'm sure you'll find differences.  But the main things probably are constant.

Well, I have been doing research on the novel, its heaviest criticisms revolved around strong bias, historical distortions, and heavily contrived racial stereotypes.

Please do read it, RavenHawk. Share with us how accurate is its history, does it have  racial stereotypes are the Jews and Arabs deeply contrasted and how strong is the bias?

Oooh, lets see here.... whoops... lets introduce ourselves to the characters provided by wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia....Main_characters

Come on, you're the one that wants to read this melodramatic propagandist SOAP OPERA of the Middle East crisis? Go on man. Give us a review afterwards.

Middle East history according to RavenHawk... er... his sources, Leon Uris.

[Yamato]

Anyone who advocates ethnic cleansing is a fool deserving to be ridiculed.

[RavenHawk]

Ambush Bug, on 20 October 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

The Jews only bought and owned 7% of Palestine. The 1947 Partition Plan gave the Jews an additions 48% of Palestine they didnt buy or own.

It was probably determined that they would have bought this land anyway.  The rightful owners wanted to drop these properties like a hot rock.  They were probably tired with dealing with the Palestinian too.

Quote

Hey wait a minute, the Jews possessed land deeds to 7% of Palestine, and they were the immigrants.

And your point?  No Arab power stepped forward to help the Palestinian buy up land or secure deeds.  That's all they needed to do.  That would have been the easiest thing to do.  So you have to ask the question, why wasn't this done?

Quote

The Arab Palestinians fully agree with you 100% in that the Partition Plan was a joke HOWEVER the Zionist disagreed with you. Hmmm... isnt that interesting.

Hmmm?  Not at all.  The Jew was willing to coexist.  They were willing to accept any plan – to compromise.

Quote

Most of your post is spewing out alot myths without a clue about the border aggravations Israel pulled against its neighboring Arab countries throughout the 50s and 60s IN ORDER to justify further aggression and war.

And what do you call the Arab aggravations against the Jew in the first half of the century?
The Mufti stated during his stay in Nazi Germany, "The Germans know how to get rid of the Jews . .They have definitely solved the Jewish problem."  The Mufti ordered to fight and kill the Jew.  Nasser said that he would kick the Jew back into the sea.  To me, it sounds that the Jew learned the lesson and beat the Arab at their own game and now the Arab cry foul.

[RavenHawk]

Ambush Bug, on 21 October 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

Well, I have been doing research on the novel, its heaviest criticisms revolved around strong bias, historical distortions, and heavily contrived racial stereotypes.

You’ll find heavy criticism in just about everything.  That doesn’t change the work that went into the research in this novel.  You’ll find that stereotypes are not necessarily bad.  It presented the good Arab and the bad Arab.  For the story, that’s all we needed to know.  The contrast may be simplistic but it is accurate.

Quote

Please do read it, RavenHawk. Share with us how accurate is its history, does it have  racial stereotypes are the Jews and Arabs deeply contrasted and how strong is the bias?

One of these days I will.  But I’m not going to do it to placate you.  Knowing that a screenplay leaves out a lot of the story and knowing that Dalton Trumbo wrote the screenplay, I can guess or extrapolate back that it (the novel) is probably accurate.  It goes into the inner struggle of groups like the Irgun and Haganah.  The struggle with the British and the Mufti.  The post war detention camps and the people determined to die to find a home.  What some went thought in the Nazi camps.  Etc., etc.  It’s a level of accuracy needed to tell the story.  Nothing more.

One could say that “The Right Stuff” has historical distortions and heavily contrived stereotypes but I wouldn’t hesitate to present it in a history class to introduce the student to the space program.

Quote

Oooh, lets see here.... whoops... lets introduce ourselves to the characters provided by wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia....Main_characters

Do you understand anything?  You have the historical backdrop and then you fill it with a love story or a story about the hero, etc.  The characters aren’t meant to be factually historical even though some will be based on real people, such as Ari may be based on Moshe Dayan.  This is why in my original post I believe that Uris had probably incorporated Ruth’s thoughts on certain things, especially some things with life in the kibbutz.  How much more accurate can you be than to incorporate the thoughts of those that were actually there?

Quote

Come on, you're the one that wants to read this melodramatic propagandist SOAP OPERA of the Middle East crisis? Go on man. Give us a review afterwards.

I would love to read this story and compare it to the screenplay and the film.  But it would probably be better if you do it.  I already know what to expect.  So I would be biased as you would probably put it.  You could more easily point out what you consider inaccurate.

Quote

Middle East history according to RavenHawk... er... his sources, Leon Uris.

Uris is but one source.  I guess you expect only to get your information from one source, whatever that may be.  I try to have a broad collection of points of view.  When you have such a broad base, you can usually discern what actually happened.