Is the Zionism a threat?

[Q24]

It wouldn't have reached this state if the Ottoman empire hadn't fallen, absentee landlords hadn't sold most of the land to jews and if the surrounding arab nations, who were drawn up on the same map with the same pen on the same day, had accepted the partition of the tiny piece of the Ottoman province that was left in 1946 or not attacked en masse but that is all by the by.

I can’t help but think that it would have been a good idea to find agreement with the Arab majority population who inhabited Palestine whilst the League of Nations and Jews were busy dividing up the land. Prior to the creation of Israel, the Jewish population was mostly concentrated in limited settlement areas so there is no reason the Arabs living in Palestine should have agreed to give up great swathes of land.

What is it that justified the partition plan and those 1948 borders? The reasons I hear suggested are the holocaust and long-term persecution of Jews in Europe along with the driving force of religious and Zionist ideologies (the first two here being used as pretexts for the second two). None of these suggestions are moral justification for a forceful land-grab.

As if the 1948 partition were not already provocation enough, when the Arabs tried to intervene to preserve the land as it existed, the Jews deemed it acceptable to take even more! I quite understand (if the original partition could somehow be justified) that states are entitled to defence of their borders but in extending such actions to annex additional land is obviously going to cause resentment.

In addition to the above, we have a situation today where Israel are militarily occupying the Golan Heights (belonging to Syria), the Shebaa Farms (belonging to Lebanon) and the West Bank (belonging to the Palestinians), not to mention the crippling blockade of Gaza cutting it off from the rest of the world.

The graphic below shows the continued expansion of Israel that I’m describing: -

Seeing this, is it really any wonder that so many view Israel’s expansionist policies with such disdain? Then we hear the skewed argument from the Israeli side that goes – we’ve done nothing wrong, it’s all the Arabs’ fault, they started it, they made us do it, they keep firing rockets at us for no reason at all. I say to that - look at the map for god sake, what did you expect the reaction would be!?

This is of course just the backdrop to all of the other reasons Israel receives criticism.

Its not my goal to compare horror stories and gross indiscretions but few can compared to documented CIA acts (courtesy of FOIA). Anyway, to get the juices flowing you can start with this

I’m not going to defend the CIA (I have personally pointed a finger at them more than any other intelligence agency in my discussions here) but you asked about criticism of Israel and I’m trying to get the message across that one part of this is the list of unscrupulous high-profile Mossad operations which is unsurpassed by any other current agency. The Human Rights abuses of the CIA such as torture that you provided simply do not compare with operations such as the Lavon Affair nor the numerous on record assassinations carried out by the Mossad, etc.

My sense is Israel would love to cut a deal. The problem is there is no one to cut a deal with. They even pulled out of Lebanon unilaterally... then pulled out of gaza, again unilaterally. Still, there is no concessions by their neighbors. What kind of deal do they have to make?

The following interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal shows the kind of deal offered. Essentially a long term peace would begin with Israel recognising the 1967 borders, withdrawing from all Palestinian territories and accepting the Palestinian right of return. An excerpt here: -

“The international community now speaks of lasting and just peace but how can we achieve such a peace if there are Palestinians who did not get their rights? There is a problem that happened to the Palestinians. They were a people that used to live on their land and did not find justice from the international community.

There are roots to the problem. But in reality, we now say that if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders there could be peace and security in the region and agreements between the sides until the international community finds a way to solve everybody's problems and to find a way to give back the rights to the people, to end the oppression of those who used to live on their land and were forced out of it.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4693382.stm

This would appear to be a reasonable starting point but the fact is that Israel are moving in completely the opposite direction.

Incidentally (to tie this back to the Mossad issue), this man Khaled Meshaal took up the Hamas leadership after the Israeli assassination of the former incumbent and has himself survived a Mossad assassination attempt. If we think about it, why should Israel care for concessions or deals of this kind when they very much have the upper hand and are already squeezing the life out of what remains of the Palestinians through blockades, military intervention, assassinations, etc?

I dare say, give it another 60 years and there will be no Gaza Strip or West Bank as we now know it; the green areas on the map I provided above will be all but gone.

[Alien Being]

I have a number of close friends who are Jewish. I have never known them be nefarious or engaged in any global agenda. They are family oriented, decent and hardworking- qualities I think we would all want in citizens. Yet, as I have engaged others in forums such as this, I regularly encounter zionist fears.

I have been informed that the U.S. unmatched support for Israel financially and militarily as evidence of a zionist influence. However, I think this reflects poorly on the leadership of the U.S. more than it does on the pro-Israel Israeli, after all, a citizen supportive of her nation is natural to every nation-state.

So I ask you, can you explain to me (without being anti-Semitic) what is the Zionist threat, if any? I see pro-Israelis as no different than pro-American Americans, pro-Canadian Canadians, Pro-Britain British, etc.

I think there are conspiracies going on in the Middle East.

I say that because Christainity, Judism and Islam have a set sequence of events which must occur in their Holy books before the Messiah came come to Earth.

Therefore I believe fundamentalist groups (in both America, Israel and Iran) are playing games trying to play out this sequence of events. The first event which is New Babylon being seriously damaged has already happened (New York). The next stage is the rebuilding then complete destruction of New Babylon (nuclear weapon detonated in New York?) followed by a leader crowning himself God on the seat of David. Many confuse this with being Israel but the bloodline of David are the English so the Anti-Christ will come to power in Britain.

I suspect that dispite the opposition to Iran getting a nuclear weapon events will conspire to makesure they get one and use it on New York.

[Moon Monkey]

I can’t help but think that it would have been a good idea to find agreement with the Arab majority population who inhabited Palestine whilst the League of Nations and Jews were busy dividing up the land. Prior to the creation of Israel, the Jewish population was mostly concentrated in limited settlement areas so there is no reason the Arabs living in Palestine should have agreed to give up great swathes of land.

What is it that justified the partition plan and those 1948 borders? The reasons I hear suggested are the holocaust and long-term persecution of Jews in Europe along with the driving force of religious and Zionist ideologies (the first two here being used as pretexts for the second two). None of these suggestions are moral justification for a forceful land-grab.

As if the 1948 partition were not already provocation enough, when the Arabs tried to intervene to preserve the land as it existed, the Jews deemed it acceptable to take even more! I quite understand (if the original partition could somehow be justified) that states are entitled to defence of their borders but in extending such actions to annex additional land is obviously going to cause resentment.

In addition to the above, we have a situation today where Israel are militarily occupying the Golan Heights (belonging to Syria), the Shebaa Farms (belonging to Lebanon) and the West Bank (belonging to the Palestinians), not to mention the crippling blockade of Gaza cutting it off from the rest of the world.

The graphic below shows the continued expansion of Israel that I’m describing: -

Seeing this, is it really any wonder that so many view Israel’s expansionist policies with such disdain? Then we hear the skewed argument from the Israeli side that goes – we’ve done nothing wrong, it’s all the Arabs’ fault, they started it, they made us do it, they keep firing rockets at us for no reason at all. I say to that - look at the map for god sake, what did you expect the reaction would be!?

This is of course just the backdrop to all of the other reasons Israel receives criticism.

As usual you just focus on the 1946 position which is slightly misleading. This little bit called British Mandate of Palestine was all that was left of the huge Ottoman province of Syria and much of this was owned by jews or absentee landlords. The arabs there were not giving up 'huge swathes' of land they owned simply a small percentage of a small percentage..a little sacrifice like millions of others hand to make after the world had been totally shaken up. Most of the land partitioned as jewish was desolete...and still is away from the Tel Aviv coastal strip.

The jews, or zionists as some like to call them, were buying up the land anyway and the millions displaced and escaping europe were coming to populate the jewish areas. The partition plan was an attempt to make the best of a situation that had been steadily getting worse since the Ottomans started selling their land to jews who could afford it whilst the arabs could not. The 1948 war did become a 'land-grab' but this was instigated by arabs and used by Ben Gurion to form a defensible state to repel future attacks....good foresight IMO.

Syria and Israel are still in a state of war. The Golan Heights are a very necessary stategic position that were used by bored syrian soldiers to shoot down on israeli farmers. Maybe they can returned one day as part of a peace deal and the ex-syrian inhabitants (Druse) who live there are some of the best soldiers in the israeli army. The Shebaa Farm area was ceded to Lebanon by Syria to give Hezbollah an excuse to continue attacking as israel could be said to be still occupying part of Lebanon. The Gaza 'blockade' is a hyped-up joke...there is no great hardship in Gaza and any difficulties they have were brought upon them by their own government, maybe you should direct your ire at Egypt as part of the Umma. Israel more than covers any conventions for responsibilities towards the gazans. The West Bank would have been 93% palestinian by now if Arafat had agreed to israel keeping a number of nature reserves as they overlooked the coastel plain. His refusal, the number of bombers stemming from there and the terrorists tactic of using de-occupied areas for rocket launching sites have necessitated a continued security situation, not ideal but unavoidable in the present clime.

Your map doesn't show Israel post 67 or post 82. Is that because then the map of israeli controlled areas would be seen to be shrinking and would harm your 'expansionist' argument ?. Further to that your current map is misleading as the white areas in the West Bank are where israel operates for security purposes, not a claim of 'ownership'.

Oh and finally and quite importantly why does your map not show the areas within the borders of 1948 Israel where 2 million palestinians live ? While you are answering that, in a attempt at balance, could you also provide a map of jewish owned land taken within the arab world. Thank you.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Moon Monkey

[SlimJim22]

I think there are conspiracies going on in the Middle East.

I say that because Christainity, Judism and Islam have a set sequence of events which must occur in their Holy books before the Messiah came come to Earth.

Therefore I believe fundamentalist groups (in both America, Israel and Iran) are playing games trying to play out this sequence of events. The first event which is New Babylon being seriously damaged has already happened (New York). The next stage is the rebuilding then complete destruction of New Babylon (nuclear weapon detonated in New York?) followed by a leader crowning himself God on the seat of David. Many confuse this with being Israel but the bloodline of David are the English so the Anti-Christ will come to power in Britain.

I suspect that dispite the opposition to Iran getting a nuclear weapon events will conspire to makesure they get one and use it on New York.

The Davidian bloodline is not exclusively British but I can understand why you would think it was. Bloodlines are not restricted by national borders and are literally global. However, an interesting note is that Both Obama and McCain trace their heritage back to William the Lion of Scotland.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1575595/McCain-and-Obama-share-royal-lineage.html

This is likely to mean that they are tied into to the bloodlines of the Merovogian jews.

To further confuse the picture, Obama through his father descends from a tribe of Kenya called the Luo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luo_(family_of_ethnic_groups)

Anyway there are also jewish groups in Kenya and Uganda. The ones in Kenya seem ancient but the Ugandan jews were only created at the turn of the 20th century. I'm not trying to paint any particular picture but just emphasizing that it is extremely complex and to say the anti christ will come from Britain is not necessarily true. It could be but there are certainly other alternatives don't you think?

[puridalan]

Speaking of the loss of land...did anyone bring up the 'iron curtain' yet? if not im suprised

To the other person about the UN cutting a deal in 47', the UN is a joke..anyone who says otherwise, is because their butt is benefiting from it. I've talked with over 230 memebers of the UN...ya and from what I can tell, it's one big satire -.-

They would be the last place I'd ask for help or reform

So on that part, I really can't blame the arabs

Edited May 8, 2010 by puridalan

[Q24]

As usual you just focus on the 1946 position which is slightly misleading.

It is the changes over the last sixty and a bit years which have most directly contributed to the current situation – the real catalyst being the Israeli declaration of independence in 1948. This is not misleading but a realistic starting point to understanding the present day situation. The factors become less relevant the further we start tracking history back to earlier or even biblical times.

Your map doesn't show Israel post 67 or post 82. Is that because then the map of israeli controlled areas would be seen to be shrinking and would harm your 'expansionist' argument ?.

The map focuses on the former land of Palestine and so does not show the Sinai Peninsula… you will notice that neither does it include the still occupied Golan Heights. Also, I really don’t think you will convince many people that Israel gave up the Sinai as a gesture of goodwill. Rather than a lack of will to build Jewish settlements there, the withdrawal appears due to factors such as severe conflict with Egypt, international pressure and a desire to divide the united front of the Arab nations.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that if not for Egyptian forces giving Israel a scare during the Yom Kippur War, Jewish settlement building would still be ongoing there today. Further, it could be reasoned that the complete ineffectiveness of Syrian forces is why Israel has deemed it unnecessary to return the Golan Heights. On this basis, it appears that Israeli controlled land is dictated by what can be got away with militarily under international pressure rather than a moral obligation to the rights of other nations or people.

Further to that your current map is misleading as the white areas in the West Bank are where israel operates for security purposes, not a claim of 'ownership'.

Could you explain how significant Israeli settlement building in the West Bank is for security purposes?

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

Oh and finally and quite importantly why does your map not show the areas within the borders of 1948 Israel where 2 million palestinians live ? While you are answering that, in a attempt at balance, could you also provide a map of jewish owned land taken within the arab world. Thank you.

I cannot find a map of specifically Jewish owned land taken by the Arabs – this could be difficult when the state of Israel only came into existence in recent history and has never actually reduced in size from its original borders. The Palestinian demographics that you also request only confirm that lands which contained an Arab majority were taken by Israel.

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/IMG/jpg/1946_arab_and_jewish_map.jpg

[Moon Monkey]

It is the changes over the last sixty and a bit years which have most directly contributed to the current situation the real catalyst being the Israeli declaration of independence in 1948. This is not misleading but a realistic starting point to understanding the present day situation. The factors become less relevant the further we start tracking history back to earlier or even biblical times.

Catalyst is a good word as the declaration on independence showed that the arabs were, by force of arms, not going to tolerate any state, of any size, UN declared or otherwise. Also the mandated region given to France and Britain after WW1 would be a better place to start your map series to show a more truthful development of the situation as at least that area was a province for a few hundred years, the map you show only existed after the creation of Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan.

BTW history is relevent as I think it was the roman genocides and expulsions that contributed mostly, there were millions of jews there in 79 and 135...think how many would be there today.

The map focuses on the former land of Palestine and so does not show the Sinai Peninsula… you will notice that neither does it include the still occupied Golan Heights. Also, I really dont think you will convince many people that Israel gave up the Sinai as a gesture of goodwill. Rather than a lack of will to build Jewish settlements there, the withdrawal appears due to factors such as severe conflict with Egypt, international pressure and a desire to divide the united front of the Arab nations.

As I just said above this 'land of Palestine' you show never existed other than as the rements of a mandated out ottoman province. It also conveniently and misleadingly shows Israel as 'expansionist' whereas in fact Israel has been in control of a much larger arae than it is today. Oh and why was there severe conflict with Egypt and Syria ? Nations whose own borders were defined on the same map with the same pencil as the borders allocated to Israel and rejected by arabs.There were settlements in Sanai and their removal was very messy and leaves scars to this this day.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that if not for Egyptian forces giving Israel a scare during the Yom Kippur War, Jewish settlement building would still be ongoing there today. Further, it could be reasoned that the complete ineffectiveness of Syrian forces is why Israel has deemed it unnecessary to return the Golan Heights. On this basis, it appears that Israeli controlled land is dictated by what can be got away with militarily under international pressure rather than a moral obligation to the rights of other nations or people.

If Israel wanted a lasting peace with Egypt (and more latterly Jordan) then they would have had to hand back land..the dictatorship in Syria is a different kettle of fish.

BTW are you really naive enough to beleive that if the Yom Kippur attack, which was very touch and go for a few days, had led to a decisive and total victory for Egypt and Syria then they would have simply handed the land back to the israelis ? Really ? Which bit ?

Could you explain how significant Israeli settlement building in the West Bank is for security purposes?

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

In the main, no. I am totally against settlements inside the West Bank and I would volunteer to drag them out kicking and screaming. Having said that the situation along the green line is very different where in some cases some of the high ground must be kept, some are so sprawling and straddle the line and should be traded for places like Wadi Yara in a final peace deal and others, mainly in east Jerusalem, were built on jewish owned land annexed by Jordan in 48.

I cannot find a map of specifically Jewish owned land taken by the Arabs this could be difficult when the state of Israel only came into existence in recent history and has never actually reduced in size from its original borders. The Palestinian demographics that you also request only confirm that lands which contained an Arab majority were taken by Israel.

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/IMG/jpg/1946_arab_and_jewish_map.jpg

Isn't it 'funny' how a google search can return thousands of maps showing 'arab land stolen by jews' but try finding a 'jewish land stolen by arabs' or 'arab land within israels borders'. Those 2 million arabs inside Israel must live somewhere and those 1.5 million jews who came from arab lands must have lived somewhere. Very strange.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Moon Monkey

[Q24]

BTW history is relevent as I think it was the roman genocides and expulsions that contributed mostly, there were millions of jews there in 79 and 135...think how many would be there today.

Ok, some general thoughts on history…

I’ve been reading various accounts about persecution of the Jews throughout the ages all over Europe, Africa and the Middle East – it makes for a terribly long list and I don’t think it would be unfair to say that overall the Jewish people appear to have suffered more than any other.

Whilst details of the genocides and expulsions are described, it is rather more difficult to uncover and pinpoint the reasons why exactly these events occurred… and why so often does it fall on the Jews?

I can see there has, in all cases, been a degree of genuine underlying anti-Semitism that has exasperated the situations and accelerated each breakdown. Saying that, the claim it is entirely due to ethnic or religious intolerance does not stand up as there have been long periods of peace where Jewish populations have integrated with those of the countries in which they settled before relations deteriorated. It does not appear that anyone simply woke up one morning and decided to start persecuting their Jewish neighbours purely on the basis of their beliefs or background; in the cases I’ve viewed there has always been a trigger, whether built up over time or more instantaneous.

Now back to the present… I am not anti-Semitic (I’m not even religious), I’m not concerned who caused the death of Jesus, I’m not interested in who have been greedy profiteers, I don’t care why the Germans lost WWI, etc, etc, etc. As I have indicated, I start with the large change of the status quo in 1948 that has directly resulted in the conflict presently affecting the world - the last sixty-two years are all I’m looking at to reach my conclusions.

What I find is that even with none of these historical or religious issues involved, I am still criticising Israeli policy today (not meaning Jews themselves, although I guess the reflection on them is impossible to be avoided). The implications of Israel’s creation, the fact it is a racist concept, their persecution of the Arabs, what I can only see as an expansionist strategy, unscrupulous operations of the intelligence services, nuclear weapon issues, disproportionate retributions, excessive influence on the West (namely the United States), they all contribute.

From there I can’t help but wonder, well, is this similar to how Jewish communities have conducted themselves throughout the ages in at least some instances and is it the answer to my question, “… and why so often does it fall on the Jews?”

I also wonder about Jewish education; what is taught of history and religion? If there is a heavy focus on past persecution of the Jewish people blamed purely on anti-Semitism rather than the more direct triggers, then along with an emphasis that Jews are the chosen people of God, I could quite understand not only why Israeli policies exist as they do but why they have been in perpetual conflict with other peoples.

Further thoughts welcome.

Oh and why was there severe conflict with Egypt and Syria ? Nations whose own borders were defined on the same map with the same pencil as the borders allocated to Israel and rejected by arabs.

You say it yourself – the severe conflict with Egypt and Syria was/is due to the borders of Israel never having being agreed by the Arabs. The problem becomes apparent when viewing the U.N. vote on the partition plan: -

As seen, the state of Israel was created right amongst all of the very nations which opposed the plan.

Instead of continuing negotiations until a compromise was reached more widely acceptable to all parties, the partition was forced through by military means. I know some would say that no agreement of any type would ever have been achieved (we will never know) but if that turned out to be the case then the partition simply should not have gone ahead – the majority population of Palestine was Arab after all.

What was the impossibility of Jewish and Arab communities living side by side as they had done for many years? It was not until the partition plan was actually agreed that more widespread violence and civil war broke out.

BTW are you really naive enough to beleive that if the Yom Kippur attack, which was very touch and go for a few days, had led to a decisive and total victory for Egypt and Syria then they would have simply handed the land back to the israelis ? Really ? Which bit ?

No, not at all – I believe Egypt and Syria would have taken the land back for the Arabs if it had been possible.

In the main, no. I am totally against settlements inside the West Bank and I would volunteer to drag them out kicking and screaming. Having said that the situation along the green line is very different where in some cases some of the high ground must be kept, some are so sprawling and straddle the line and should be traded for places like Wadi Yara in a final peace deal and others, mainly in east Jerusalem, were built on jewish owned land annexed by Jordan in 48.

So you oppose certain Zionist policies.

Isn't it 'funny' how a google search can return thousands of maps showing 'arab land stolen by jews' but try finding a 'jewish land stolen by arabs' or 'arab land within israels borders'. Those 2 million arabs inside Israel must live somewhere and those 1.5 million jews who came from arab lands must have lived somewhere. Very strange.

I’m sure you don’t really think the situations are quite comparable – there has never been an Arab state that suddenly sprang up on Jewish majority land.

[chessnovicer]

Ok, some general thoughts on history…

I’ve been reading various accounts about persecution of the Jews throughout the ages all over Europe, Africa and the Middle East – it makes for a terribly long list and I don’t think it would be unfair to say that overall the Jewish people appear to have suffered more than any other.

Whilst details of the genocides and expulsions are described, it is rather more difficult to uncover and pinpoint the reasons why exactly these events occurred… and why so often does it fall on the Jews?

I can see there has, in all cases, been a degree of genuine underlying anti-Semitism that has exasperated the situations and accelerated each breakdown. Saying that, the claim it is entirely due to ethnic or religious intolerance does not stand up as there have been long periods of peace where Jewish populations have integrated with those of the countries in which they settled before relations deteriorated. It does not appear that anyone simply woke up one morning and decided to start persecuting their Jewish neighbours purely on the basis of their beliefs or background; in the cases I’ve viewed there has always been a trigger, whether built up over time or more instantaneous.

Now back to the present… I am not anti-Semitic (I’m not even religious), I’m not concerned who caused the death of Jesus, I’m not interested in who have been greedy profiteers, I don’t care why the Germans lost WWI, etc, etc, etc. As I have indicated, I start with the large change of the status quo in 1948 that has directly resulted in the conflict presently affecting the world - the last sixty-two years are all I’m looking at to reach my conclusions.

What I find is that even with none of these historical or religious issues involved, I am still criticising Israeli policy today (not meaning Jews themselves, although I guess the reflection on them is impossible to be avoided). The implications of Israel’s creation, the fact it is a racist concept, their persecution of the Arabs, what I can only see as an expansionist strategy, unscrupulous operations of the intelligence services, nuclear weapon issues, disproportionate retributions, excessive influence on the West (namely the United States), they all contribute.

From there I can’t help but wonder, well, is this similar to how Jewish communities have conducted themselves throughout the ages in at least some instances and is it the answer to my question, “… and why so often does it fall on the Jews?”

I also wonder about Jewish education; what is taught of history and religion? If there is a heavy focus on past persecution of the Jewish people blamed purely on anti-Semitism rather than the more direct triggers, then along with an emphasis that Jews are the chosen people of God, I could quite understand not only why Israeli policies exist as they do but why they have been in perpetual conflict with other peoples.

Further thoughts welcome.

Q24 I would like to say thank you for your research. You came to the debate with less than you will be leaving because you actually did some research.

Personally, I did not care to go into the exhaustive explanation and (possible) citation that would be required to put forward a convincing argument.

With that said, I generally agree with your findings and your questions/analysis. You ask important questions (although I make not asked in such as colorful manner) that I am not able to answer and I am not sure there are many who can.

In regards to giving the land to the Jewish people, I say this region has quite a history- a rich history but unfortunately a violent history. It is my observation, based on historical record, no nation (and by nation I mean tribal unit) has held that land except by force, going back to about 800 B.C. There is a line of conquerors from the Jewish people, to Assyrians, to the Babylonians, to the Persians, to the Greeks, to the Romans, to the Byzantine, to the Arab Caliphate and to the Ottoman Empire until its demise (then Britain and France). There is a history of totalitarian boot and respect for "strong man" government.

I am not saying a "strong man" government is needed. I am observing the historical pattern that has existed some 2800 years and suggesting the problem may not be that Israel was set up there but that Israel (unlike all the other states) was set up with no clear demonstration of its authority (force) or its legitimacy.

This is a complicated argument to follow. You may want to look back to the fall of the Ottoman empire and the creation of nation-states (Iraq, Jordan, Syria) within the region. I hope I did not confuse anyone.

Edited May 10, 2010 by chessnovicer

[Moon Monkey]

Ok, some general thoughts on history…

I’ve been reading various accounts about persecution of the Jews throughout the ages all over Europe, Africa and the Middle East – it makes for a terribly long list and I don’t think it would be unfair to say that overall the Jewish people appear to have suffered more than any other.

Whilst details of the genocides and expulsions are described, it is rather more difficult to uncover and pinpoint the reasons why exactly these events occurred… and why so often does it fall on the Jews?

I can see there has, in all cases, been a degree of genuine underlying anti-Semitism that has exasperated the situations and accelerated each breakdown. Saying that, the claim it is entirely due to ethnic or religious intolerance does not stand up as there have been long periods of peace where Jewish populations have integrated with those of the countries in which they settled before relations deteriorated. It does not appear that anyone simply woke up one morning and decided to start persecuting their Jewish neighbours purely on the basis of their beliefs or background; in the cases I’ve viewed there has always been a trigger, whether built up over time or more instantaneous.

Now back to the present… I am not anti-Semitic (I’m not even religious), I’m not concerned who caused the death of Jesus, I’m not interested in who have been greedy profiteers, I don’t care why the Germans lost WWI, etc, etc, etc. As I have indicated, I start with the large change of the status quo in 1948 that has directly resulted in the conflict presently affecting the world - the last sixty-two years are all I’m looking at to reach my conclusions.

What I find is that even with none of these historical or religious issues involved, I am still criticising Israeli policy today (not meaning Jews themselves, although I guess the reflection on them is impossible to be avoided). The implications of Israel’s creation, the fact it is a racist concept, their persecution of the Arabs, what I can only see as an expansionist strategy, unscrupulous operations of the intelligence services, nuclear weapon issues, disproportionate retributions, excessive influence on the West (namely the United States), they all contribute.

From there I can’t help but wonder, well, is this similar to how Jewish communities have conducted themselves throughout the ages in at least some instances and is it the answer to my question, “… and why so often does it fall on the Jews?”

I also wonder about Jewish education; what is taught of history and religion? If there is a heavy focus on past persecution of the Jewish people blamed purely on anti-Semitism rather than the more direct triggers, then along with an emphasis that Jews are the chosen people of God, I could quite understand not only why Israeli policies exist as they do but why they have been in perpetual conflict with other peoples.

Further thoughts welcome.

The answer you look for is in your post, the christian church has a lot to answer for in this matter over the last 1800 years. However do you agree that this situation (and others such as the holocaust) would never have come to pass if the jews had just been allowed to live in their own country for the last 1900 years ?

You say it yourself – the severe conflict with Egypt and Syria was/is due to the borders of Israel never having being agreed by the Arabs. The problem becomes apparent when viewing the U.N. vote on the partition plan: -

As seen, the state of Israel was created right amongst all of the very nations which opposed the plan.

Instead of continuing negotiations until a compromise was reached more widely acceptable to all parties, the partition was forced through by military means. I know some would say that no agreement of any type would ever have been achieved (we will never know) but if that turned out to be the case then the partition simply should not have gone ahead – the majority population of Palestine was Arab after all.

What was the impossibility of Jewish and Arab communities living side by side as they had done for many years? It was not until the partition plan was actually agreed that more widespread violence and civil war broke out.

The countries that voted against were, in the main, created themselves around the same time. Why is what is good for them not also good for Israel ? UN creates me..UN good...UN creates Israel...UN bad.

No, not at all – I believe Egypt and Syria would have taken the land back for the Arabs if it had been possible.

So you oppose certain Zionist policies.

I’m sure you don’t really think the situations are quite comparable – there has never been an Arab state that suddenly sprang up on Jewish majority land.

'Land back for the arabs'...it was never 'land of the arabs'. Did you read anything when you were doing your research about arab immigration to the area between 1880-1946, once the jews started to turn the place around ?

Yes I do oppose settlements in the West Bank....for a lot of reasons.

Every arab state 'suddenly sprang up' and minorities or majorities in these states were not my point (the reasons for the disparate nature of the jewish people, and therefore their minority status within other lands can be found in the research you did)...my point was that your map was deliberatly misleading ...where is your balanced map showing jewish land taken by arabs and arab land within the state of israel ?

This also leads me to another question for you .. why did 1.5 million jewish 'refugees' from arab lands get quickly taken into the tiny struggling jewish state between 1950-1970 whereas the 500-800,000 arabs who left israel never got taken in by the millions of square miles of arab land within the Umma and those who did settle in neighbouring arab lands were subject to slaughters, where the numbers of killed were worse than the entire total of the arab-israeli conflict, and left in a 'refugee' status to this day ?

[KennyB]

Sounds like you're saying the "Christain Politicians" are hedging their bets. I sgree. I read that Saddam Hussien was doing something similar by rebuilding Babylon, preparing for the Final Battle. KennyB

[Corp]

Well hardcore Zionism is likely a threat, as are most extreme policies, but really only in certain areas in the Middle East. Know I've never been threatened by Zionism and the whole 'Zionist are trying to control the world' is a load of bulk, imo

[acidhead]

Well hardcore Zionism is likely a threat, as are most extreme policies, but really only in certain areas in the Middle East. Know I've never been threatened by Zionism and the whole 'Zionist are trying to control the world' is a load of bulk, imo

Yes you have... you've been threatened by zionism........ your statement is not correct...... it doesn't represent your views discussed in other threads.

-you support the NATO and american forces in Afghanistan.... correct?

Why do you support the so-called 'mission'?

-because of 911.... correct?

Why did hi-jackers attack the USA on 911?

-because of Israeli zionism persecution and stealing of land from the palestinians in the land of Palestine.

Hence, you have been affected by zionism.

Edited May 10, 2010 by acidhead

[Black Hound]

I firmly believe it is, as much a threat to the U.S. as the Catholic Church is to world stability.Shame if something would happen to each, or would it?

[Corp]

Yes you have... you've been threatened by zionism........ your statement is not correct...... it doesn't represent your views discussed in other threads.

-you support the NATO and american forces in Afghanistan.... correct?

Why do you support the so-called 'mission'?

-because of 911.... correct?

Why did hi-jackers attack the USA on 911?

-because of Israeli zionism persecution and stealing of land from the palestinians in the land of Palestine.

Hence, you have been affected by zionism.

Affected perhaps. This isn't the same as threatened. Not the Zionist fault some nut jobs decided to kill a bunch of civilians.

[acidhead]

Affected perhaps. This isn't the same as threatened. Not the Zionist fault some nut jobs decided to kill a bunch of civilians.

Its as old as the old testament Corp.

-REVENGE

[FurthurBB]

I can’t help but think that it would have been a good idea to find agreement with the Arab majority population who inhabited Palestine whilst the League of Nations and Jews were busy dividing up the land. Prior to the creation of Israel, the Jewish population was mostly concentrated in limited settlement areas so there is no reason the Arabs living in Palestine should have agreed to give up great swathes of land.

What is it that justified the partition plan and those 1948 borders? The reasons I hear suggested are the holocaust and long-term persecution of Jews in Europe along with the driving force of religious and Zionist ideologies (the first two here being used as pretexts for the second two). None of these suggestions are moral justification for a forceful land-grab.

As if the 1948 partition were not already provocation enough, when the Arabs tried to intervene to preserve the land as it existed, the Jews deemed it acceptable to take even more! I quite understand (if the original partition could somehow be justified) that states are entitled to defence of their borders but in extending such actions to annex additional land is obviously going to cause resentment.

In addition to the above, we have a situation today where Israel are militarily occupying the Golan Heights (belonging to Syria), the Shebaa Farms (belonging to Lebanon) and the West Bank (belonging to the Palestinians), not to mention the crippling blockade of Gaza cutting it off from the rest of the world.

The graphic below shows the continued expansion of Israel that I’m describing: -

Seeing this, is it really any wonder that so many view Israel’s expansionist policies with such disdain? Then we hear the skewed argument from the Israeli side that goes – we’ve done nothing wrong, it’s all the Arabs’ fault, they started it, they made us do it, they keep firing rockets at us for no reason at all. I say to that - look at the map for god sake, what did you expect the reaction would be!?

This is of course just the backdrop to all of the other reasons Israel receives criticism.

I’m not going to defend the CIA (I have personally pointed a finger at them more than any other intelligence agency in my discussions here) but you asked about criticism of Israel and I’m trying to get the message across that one part of this is the list of unscrupulous high-profile Mossad operations which is unsurpassed by any other current agency. The Human Rights abuses of the CIA such as torture that you provided simply do not compare with operations such as the Lavon Affair nor the numerous on record assassinations carried out by the Mossad, etc.

The following interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal shows the kind of deal offered. Essentially a long term peace would begin with Israel recognising the 1967 borders, withdrawing from all Palestinian territories and accepting the Palestinian right of return. An excerpt here: -

“The international community now speaks of lasting and just peace but how can we achieve such a peace if there are Palestinians who did not get their rights? There is a problem that happened to the Palestinians. They were a people that used to live on their land and did not find justice from the international community.

There are roots to the problem. But in reality, we now say that if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders there could be peace and security in the region and agreements between the sides until the international community finds a way to solve everybody's problems and to find a way to give back the rights to the people, to end the oppression of those who used to live on their land and were forced out of it.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4693382.stm

This would appear to be a reasonable starting point but the fact is that Israel are moving in completely the opposite direction.

Incidentally (to tie this back to the Mossad issue), this man Khaled Meshaal took up the Hamas leadership after the Israeli assassination of the former incumbent and has himself survived a Mossad assassination attempt. If we think about it, why should Israel care for concessions or deals of this kind when they very much have the upper hand and are already squeezing the life out of what remains of the Palestinians through blockades, military intervention, assassinations, etc?

I dare say, give it another 60 years and there will be no Gaza Strip or West Bank as we now know it; the green areas on the map I provided above will be all but gone.

I have several problems with your version of the truth. For one thing, the Jews were not dividing any land, since it was British territory, it was England and the League of Nations that split up the land. There was never a Palestinian country, the Palestinians were nomadic people who settled in British territories in the Middle East because they had historic problems with other countries. It was only fair to give the Jews their own country and made sense that it was in the same place that they had a country before. Granted, the Palestinians came out a little worse from it, but, if they were allowed the land that was originally granted to them it would have been a lot better. Instead, Jordon, Egypt, and Syria wanted more land than they ever had and took it by force from the Palestinians who never had a standing army. Then these same three countries decided they could have Israel too, and found out how wrong they were the hard way. Israel now feel that if they relinquish lands obtained during the six day war then they will be vulnerable and I can understand why. Also, as far as intelligence agencies go, the MOSSAD takes more responsibility for their actions than others and that is no reason to give them a worse label. I actually have a bit more respect for them because of it.

[FurthurBB]

Speaking of the loss of land...did anyone bring up the 'iron curtain' yet? if not im suprised

To the other person about the UN cutting a deal in 47', the UN is a joke..anyone who says otherwise, is because their butt is benefiting from it. I've talked with over 230 memebers of the UN...ya and from what I can tell, it's one big satire -.-

They would be the last place I'd ask for help or reform

So on that part, I really can't blame the arabs

Actually, the iron curtain was a deal made between the US and Russia long before the end of the war and had nothing to do with the UN or the League of Nations.

[puridalan]

No, I am not speaking of the Iron curtaion in that regards, I should of been clearer. It is the new "iron curtain" that has to deal in the middle east with closing off streets, it is a major wall that runs through all of the city, over 25 ft tall and it is for segregration issues just like what Hitler would do...but before the gulags..they aren't at concentration camps yet.

Sorry, should of cleared the up earlier.

[Alien Being]

The Davidian bloodline is not exclusively British but I can understand why you would think it was. Bloodlines are not restricted by national borders and are literally global. However, an interesting note is that Both Obama and McCain trace their heritage back to William the Lion of Scotland.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1575595/McCain-and-Obama-share-royal-lineage.html

This is likely to mean that they are tied into to the bloodlines of the Merovogian jews.

To further confuse the picture, Obama through his father descends from a tribe of Kenya called the Luo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luo_(family_of_ethnic_groups)

Anyway there are also jewish groups in Kenya and Uganda. The ones in Kenya seem ancient but the Ugandan jews were only created at the turn of the 20th century. I'm not trying to paint any particular picture but just emphasizing that it is extremely complex and to say the anti christ will come from Britain is not necessarily true. It could be but there are certainly other alternatives don't you think?

I always thought it was the seat of David he will be crowned on which is the throne of the British Monarch. If not then yes this bloodline is more widespread than simply located within British borders and there is the possibility the Anti-Christ could arise somewhere else.

[Q24]

The answer you look for is in your post, the christian church has a lot to answer for in this matter over the last 1800 years. However do you agree that this situation (and others such as the holocaust) would never have come to pass if the jews had just been allowed to live in their own country for the last 1900 years ?

If the Jews spread their practises within Christian dominated countries in opposition to the prevailing beliefs then there will obviously be conflict. An example is Jewish usury (lending of money for profit) from which many of them were becoming wealthy in England during the 12th and 13th centuries against teachings of the Christian church. This appears to be a major trigger for the Jewish expulsion in 1290.

You ask, would such persecutions have come to pass if the Jews had been presented their own country 1,900 years ago? Using the above example again, there were many years of peaceful existence for the Jews in England where they prospered and were even given rights above that of the native citizens at times. There is no reason to think that the Jewish population would have left England if the state of Israel had existed back then. So my answer: I’m very unconvinced that it would have made a great difference.

To support the above answer further, it is worth noting that even today two-thirds of Jewish people live in countries other than Israel. There are more Jews in the U.S. today than there are in Israel.

Taking the above thought on a tangent and bearing in mind this is the conspiracy board, I’m going to ask a question – could the U.S. be the location of the next great Jewish persecution? Such a suggestion may sound crazy in the current social climate but there are parallels that could be drawn to history and under certain future circumstances it is not impossible there could be a backlash. Imagine any number of years from now if Israeli policies continued to build resentment and Zionist influence (from both lobbying groups and Jewish politicians) in Washington led to a war that resulted in the fall of the U.S. as a world power. We know too well where the blame might then be placed.

If the answer to your original question were affirmative then I suggest whole Jewish populations from all over the world should be immigrating to Israel right now… but they aren’t and so it appears the potential still exists somewhere down the line for another disaster that no one wants to see.

The countries that voted against were, in the main, created themselves around the same time. Why is what is good for them not also good for Israel ? UN creates me..UN good...UN creates Israel...UN bad.

The whole area of the British and French Mandates were Arab majority land. When an area of that land is partitioned and officially defined as a specifically Jewish state then of course it will be seen as bad by the whole region. The borders of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan did not create a change to the status quo of people living on that land as the later creation of Israel did.

Its all by the by now but, without agreement from the majority population of the land I can’t see that the partition should have gone ahead in the way it did. I have to ask the question again because you did not answer - what was the impossibility of Jewish and Arab communities living side by side as they had done for many years but under a Palestinian state? It was not until the partition plan was actually agreed that more widespread violence and civil war broke out.

'Land back for the arabs'...it was never 'land of the arabs'. Did you read anything when you were doing your research about arab immigration to the area between 1880-1946, once the jews started to turn the place around ?

I agree the area discussed in 1948 was never ‘land of the Arabs’ but neither was it ‘land of the Jews’. The only way the latter can be true is if we all start laying claim to long past empires which have not existed for some 2,000 years. Which actually makes me think… that’s exactly what the Jews did do.

I cannot agree that Arab immigration to the area during 1880-1946 only began after “the jews started to turn the place around”. There are studies both for and against the argument with perhaps the most sensible I read appealing to the fact there are actually no reliable census records from those times.

I really don’t want to go down the never-ending route of a long-past history debate and one-upmanship of ‘they did this to us, no they did that to us’ where it gets away from the direct cause of the current situation.

...my point was that your map was deliberatly misleading ...where is your balanced map showing jewish land taken by arabs and arab land within the state of israel ?

The map is a true representation at the times noted of the Palestine area upon which Israel was created. I am not aware that any Arab state has been forcefully created on Jewish majority land or that there is specifically Arab designated land within Israel. If you would like to provide your own map to show otherwise then I would be interested to take a look.

This also leads me to another question for you .. why did 1.5 million jewish 'refugees' from arab lands get quickly taken into the tiny struggling jewish state between 1950-1970 whereas the 500-800,000 arabs who left israel never got taken in by the millions of square miles of arab land within the Umma and those who did settle in neighbouring arab lands were subject to slaughters, where the numbers of killed were worse than the entire total of the arab-israeli conflict, and left in a 'refugee' status to this day ?

I can say with certainty that the root cause of the entire Jewish/Palestinian refugee situation is/was Zionist policy.

[Q24]

No, I am not speaking of the Iron curtaion in that regards, I should of been clearer. It is the new "iron curtain" that has to deal in the middle east with closing off streets, it is a major wall that runs through all of the city, over 25 ft tall and it is for segregration issues just like what Hitler would do...but before the gulags..they aren't at concentration camps yet.

Sorry, should of cleared the up earlier.

The Israelis seem to be having a hard time steering the West Bank barrier along the Green Line; it appears to keep cutting into Palestinian land. Anyone would be forgiven for thinking the primary intention was just another land-grab including Jerusalem. The additional security is a good thing but perhaps I might suggest… build it on your own land!!!

[puridalan]

Uh what..I think you are misreading what I am saying..no I'm talking about big 25 foot walls all in the city, built to keep one type of religion out..and no its not a joke..whole long documentaries on these things, and if they walk in the wrong street or bridge they aren't suppose to, they get burned alive and so forth..been going on for a while..only thing they don't have is concentration camps at this point. it's how hitler sort of started out minus the 25 foot wall, but the small 'ghettos' they put the jews/others in before removing them to the camps. I believe with cases like this only matter of time before it builds up into such things, unfortuantly.

[Moon Monkey]

If the Jews spread their practises within Christian dominated countries in opposition to the prevailing beliefs then there will obviously be conflict. An example is Jewish usury (lending of money for profit) from which many of them were becoming wealthy in England during the 12th and 13th centuries against teachings of the Christian church. This appears to be a major trigger for the Jewish expulsion in 1290.

I don't recall 'spreading of their practices within Christian dominated countries' being mentioned in anything I have ever read. In 1900 years of disporsa it probably did happen but I would be interested to read of this if you have a link. As for money lending, I was under the impression this was one of few routes open to jews and christians were prevented from doing it by their own religious leaders. I presume they were not only lending to other jews so it seems to be a case of 'we need money lenders, we cannot do it but you can so please lend to us but when you do you will be persecuted for it' ( to avoid paying loans back?)

You ask, would such persecutions have come to pass if the Jews had been presented their own country 1,900 years ago? Using the above example again, there were many years of peaceful existence for the Jews in England where they prospered and were even given rights above that of the native citizens at times. There is no reason to think that the Jewish population would have left England if the state of Israel had existed back then. So my answer: I’m very unconvinced that it would have made a great difference.

I am not talking about them being 'presented their own country' I am talking about leaving them in the country they had already resided in for thousands of years. There would have been no expulsions as I don't believe they would have been there in the first place.

To support the above answer further, it is worth noting that even today two-thirds of Jewish people live in countries other than Israel. There are more Jews in the U.S. today than there are in Israel.

Taking the above thought on a tangent and bearing in mind this is the conspiracy board, I’m going to ask a question – could the U.S. be the location of the next great Jewish persecution? Such a suggestion may sound crazy in the current social climate but there are parallels that could be drawn to history and under certain future circumstances it is not impossible there could be a backlash. Imagine any number of years from now if Israeli policies continued to build resentment and Zionist influence (from both lobbying groups and Jewish politicians) in Washington led to a war that resulted in the fall of the U.S. as a world power. We know too well where the blame might then be placed.

Again, IMO, they would never have been there in the first place. As for lobbyists etc....many of these disporsa jews will have friends and family in Israel, it makes sense they would lobby to support the place. As for the conspiracy stuff...who knows?

If the answer to your original question were affirmative then I suggest whole Jewish populations from all over the world should be immigrating to Israel right now… but they aren’t and so it appears the potential still exists somewhere down the line for another disaster that no one wants to see.

The world is a different place today, there is still a steady stream of aaliyah but with all the problems it is hardly attractive at the moment to western jews.

The whole area of the British and French Mandates were Arab majority land. When an area of that land is partitioned and officially defined as a specifically Jewish state then of course it will be seen as bad by the whole region. The borders of Syria, Lebanon and Jordan did not create a change to the status quo of people living on that land as the later creation of Israel did.

Its all by the by now but, without agreement from the majority population of the land I can’t see that the partition should have gone ahead in the way it did. I have to ask the question again because you did not answer - what was the impossibility of Jewish and Arab communities living side by side as they had done for many years but under a Palestinian state? It was not until the partition plan was actually agreed that more widespread violence and civil war broke out.

The status quo was only disrupted by the refusal to accept the plan and the declaration of war. The arabs who remained in israel to this day show that a status quo could have been maintained, they even benefitted as every UN and OECD measure of health and wealth shows the israeli arabs to be better off than those in any non-oil rich arab country,

I agree the area discussed in 1948 was never ‘land of the Arabs’ but neither was it ‘land of the Jews’. The only way the latter can be true is if we all start laying claim to long past empires which have not existed for some 2,000 years. Which actually makes me think… that’s exactly what the Jews did do.

Surely this whole region has developed along past empires routes...a call had to be made in 1946....why are you deciding that the time-line was cut at 1917..why not 1500 or 600 or 135 ?

I cannot agree that Arab immigration to the area during 1880-1946 only began after “the jews started to turn the place around”. There are studies both for and against the argument with perhaps the most sensible I read appealing to the fact there are actually no reliable census records from those times.

I really don’t want to go down the never-ending route of a long-past history debate and one-upmanship of ‘they did this to us, no they did that to us’ where it gets away from the direct cause of the current situation.

Just because you don't agree doesn't make it incorrect. It is well documented and where there were censuses this is clearly shown.

The map is a true representation at the times noted of the Palestine area upon which Israel was created. I am not aware that any Arab state has been forcefully created on Jewish majority land or that there is specifically Arab designated land within Israel. If you would like to provide your own map to show otherwise then I would be interested to take a look.

I can say with certainty that the root cause of the entire Jewish/Palestinian refugee situation is/was Zionist policy.

That may be so but is still misleading....it would be much more balanced to show the development of the whole province of Syria from the fall of the Ottoman empire. As I keep saying this is simply a precentage of a percentage that was left after everything else had already been divided up by the same people who were dividing this up.

The Israelis seem to be having a hard time steering the West Bank barrier along the Green Line; it appears to keep cutting into Palestinian land. Anyone would be forgiven for thinking the primary intention was just another land-grab including Jerusalem. The additional security is a good thing but perhaps I might suggest… build it on your own land!!!

Much of the land was annexed by Jordan and many of the green line settlements are built on what was jewish owned land. Having said that there has been too much land taken for reasons we have already discussed so a fair trade for places like Wadi Yara should happen....if the arabs living in such places would rather go to live in 'Palestine'.....the number of arabs applying for full israeli citizen status recently seems to suggest they would not.

[Q24]

Uh what..I think you are misreading what I am saying..no I'm talking about big 25 foot walls all in the city, built to keep one type of religion out..and no its not a joke..whole long documentaries on these things, and if they walk in the wrong street or bridge they aren't suppose to, they get burned alive and so forth..been going on for a while..only thing they don't have is concentration camps at this point. it's how hitler sort of started out minus the 25 foot wall, but the small 'ghettos' they put the jews/others in before removing them to the camps. I believe with cases like this only matter of time before it builds up into such things, unfortuantly.

I thought you might be talking about the West Bank barrier as that is also a big wall with barbed-wire and a ditch on the Palestinian side. It is being built by Israel on the West Bank side of the border (with in-routes of up to 20km in places) cutting people off from their farmland and other amenities.

Perhaps you are talking about older walls actually inside Jerusalem which divides the city into quarters by religion? I think this is a longer-standing situation so is not as controversial but I haven’t seen much information on this area so could be missing something.

I’m not sure city walls will matter so much once the West Bank barrier is complete and encloses the whole of Jerusalem on the Israeli side of the new border.

I don't recall 'spreading of their practices within Christian dominated countries' being mentioned in anything I have ever read. In 1900 years of disporsa it probably did happen but I would be interested to read of this if you have a link. As for money lending, I was under the impression this was one of few routes open to jews and christians were prevented from doing it by their own religious leaders. I presume they were not only lending to other jews so it seems to be a case of 'we need money lenders, we cannot do it but you can so please lend to us but when you do you will be persecuted for it' ( to avoid paying loans back?)

I say “the Jews spread their practises” in reference to communities of migrants whose actions were against practises of the existing population. There are snippets which show this here and there, such as the example I gave of Jewish usury in England when it was forbidden by the Christian church who had strong influence at the time. If the Jewish communities had concentrated on farming, crafts, etc, then perhaps there would not have been the expulsion in 1290.

I am not talking about them being 'presented their own country' I am talking about leaving them in the country they had already resided in for thousands of years. There would have been no expulsions as I don't believe they would have been there in the first place.

It’s a big assumption to make that the Jewish people would have remained confined to their country for the past 2,000 years – it’s very possible there would still have been expansions and/or migrations at some point leading to the same issues we have seen throughout history, we cannot know for sure.

Still, today’s situation cannot be justified because the Jews lost their country thousands of years ago. If we set that precedent there could be all sorts of strange situations arising – the next we know there will be Native Americans creating their own country and annexing land in the mid-West United States.

The arabs who remained in israel to this day show that a status quo could have been maintained…

Yes, it seems that the minority Jewish and majority Arab communities could have continued to co-exist under a united Palestine banner. So then we see that the 1948 creation of Israel, direct cause of the present day conflict, was not a necessity but based on ideologies of the Zionist movement.

Just because you don't agree doesn't make it incorrect. It is well documented and where there were censuses this is clearly shown.

The sources I have seen 1878-1946 always show an Arab majority population in Palestine.

....if the arabs living in such places would rather go to live in 'Palestine'.....the number of arabs applying for full israeli citizen status recently seems to suggest they would not.

It appears that the West Bank barrier is effectively forcing Arabs to become Israeli citizens just to hold onto their own land, jobs, rights, etc. I read that many Arabs have needed to relocate from the Eastern suburbs of Jerusalem into the main city just so they don’t get cut off altogether by the barrier – I suppose these people will become Israeli citizens too. And there are those such as Benjamin Netanyahu who have expressed views that the growing Arab population is a time-bomb that must be dealt with.