Who are Palestinians?

[+and-then]

thanks man i approciate your support for my country and trust me things in ME are looking for the better

can'i t say it'll be in israel favor .. but certinally things in ME are going to something really better than before

and when i say middle east will go for better .. it probably means the worse for israel

it's obvious how it affects so far .. the events in egypt .. the bad realtion with turkey

soon israel won't have any allies remaining if they keep this way

i try to keep my point view simple based on my morals destroying a house of a jew and drive him out to me is just as worse as destroying the house of palestinian and drive him out

but for isralies to build their settlements on the ruins of palestinians homes is just too ugly fact to overlook

however like i said .. the whole middle east going to change and it'll get worse before it gets better in my opinion

but eventally it will work pretty damn well for the palestinians cause

I'm sure that sentiment will come as no surprise to Israelis. And I agree with you that it will get worse before it gets better. The dream of destroying Israel never dies but never gets any closer...kind of like a mirage in the desert. Before you get too excited about a "new" mideast that might unite against Israel, I'd check the history of Nasser and how all his efforts turned out. Oh my...

[MichaelW]

Yes I did claim that it's Israeli property because I believe some of the settlers were at worst the unwitting dupes who are no worse than recipients of stolen property.

So then why claim the contrary? And the settlers weren't duped. They knew that it was "stolen" and they moved in and built houses and towns anyway, at the behest of the government, much like the Turks did with Northern Cyprus. So, seeing as you are claiming it is Israeli property, do you think it should have remained in Israeli hands? Or are you like me and support the handing over of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians as a good gesture of peace and reconciliation by Israel? Because the latter is exactly what I think of the Gaza debacle.

Who built the settlements? Private construction companies like we have in the US? Government contractors? Did the Settlers buy their homes? Are they paying mortgages? I'm asking you. Reminding me 20 times that I said something wrong when you have no data is getting ridiculous.

I think it should be fairly obvious for someone who claims to be "edcuated" (copy and pasting information doesn't count as intelligence) to figure out how settlements ended up on the land in the first place. It isn't rocket science.

Whatever agreements made between the government of Israel and their Jew-only implants needs to come to an end in an amicable manner and then they need to get off the land because what they've built on is Palestinian land. It's disgusting what happened to Israelis in Gaza. That policy is a total mess.

I agree. The Israeli government shouldn't have left them in the cold like that. Two years living out of a tent is just idiotic.

I'm not on a high horse and I could care less what you think of me. You're a nuisance who has done nothing to improve the quality of this thread. You're incapable of talking about ideas. You have acknowledged no solutions. Rhetoric and insults are all you've got left.

But you are. All you've done is spurt more rhetoric than I have, expressed a desire to remove the state of Israel and presented no solutions whatsoever, only claiming you have to justify the trash you keep posting.

[Knight Of Shadows]

I'm sure that sentiment will come as no surprise to Israelis. And I agree with you that it will get worse before it gets better. The dream of destroying Israel never dies but never gets any closer...kind of like a mirage in the desert. Before you get too excited about a "new" mideast that might unite against Israel, I'd check the history of Nasser and how all his efforts turned out. Oh my...

and am sure you can't read right i didn't say anything about destroying israel

israel exist in ME only fool would deny that and it's probably gonna keep going to exist no matter what

but wheather it exist equally with palestinians or not is the deal here

now before you go around trying to teach me some history lession which your words makes you look like you don't know heck about history of the area

you trying to make the times of nasser and those times look alike ? that's a big lol

what you should reliaze about the new ME is finally the goverments will represent their people's ambitions yeah

no longer dictators to protect israel by surpressing people

and believe when i say it's going to take a million of arabic countries people for you to find one that does like israel .. in case you did find any

israel need to reconsider their situation .. you can't live with nighbors peacefully while you kill their brothers in your country

and don't think for the min that this egypt current goverment is what represent the people .. the revolution in egypt still going on

it'll soon be all over middle east .. no exceptions and the palestinians cause will profit greatly from it

you see .. things tend to be different when all your nighbors close their borders to you won't let you use their ground or air .. ain't that a peaceful way of opposing israel ?

you on the other hand talking about nasser time what a big laugh .. you mean the time where dictators conspired against him

when he was in lebanon when israel was nearly going crazy coz the palestinian resistance and asked their beloved dictators for help .. when they answered quickly

you should read more about history of the area before reminding me of it

[Erikl]

Oh my, I've touched a sacred cow it seems, and now the pro-Palestinians are rampaging without an end.

Q24, I do not accept your claim, "Yes, the whole concept of Israel as a ‘Jewish State’ is reliant on a policy of ethnic cleansing." - it is completely your views, and maybe on par with some right wing extremists but was never a mainstream agenda, doesn't matter how many times your repeat a lie, it's still a lie.

And it also goes against history, as I've proven in this thread over and over. Just because those posts are now two pages away, doesn't mean that you can go back and claim exactly the same, as if no other information has been presented here. As I've said, you can keep on bashing your head against the history wall.

Let's set one thing straight: had the Palestinians accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee. An independent Palestinian state would now exist beside Israel. The responsibility for the refugee problem rests with the Palestinians themselves.

History says so. Sorry.

In 1947, the Jews celebrated the partition plan. The Palestinians started a civil war, which later on became a all out war.

You and your like-minded pro-Pals will have us believe that something like that happened: Jews, or Zionists, were the agressors. They weren't. Sure, it might be that the Arabs didn't like it, that suddenly Jews became from a 5% minority to about 35% in just 70 years. But the Palestinians weren't the masters of the land, their land wasn't stolen or ripped (if anything it was bought fair and square). Jews have always agreed to either: 1) live in an autonomy as part of a large country with Arab majority 2) once it became clear Arabs cannot tolerate Jewish existence, to divide the land.

Had the Palestinians accepted the 1937 offer to divide the land, they would have enjoyed the following:

Had they accepted the 1947 offer, they would have enjoyed the following:

Do you see the pattern here? Palestinians, after they've started attacking the Zionist Jews (back in 1920, as soon as the Ottoman rule disappeared, and some 40 years after Zionist immigration started), without provocation (oh I forgot, simply being a Jews is enough), making it impossible for Jews to live with them in the same country, then declined the peaceful solution - to divide the land, at first with them receiving the majority of the land. Every time they refused, they got less and less land.

This is history, I'm sorry.

As for why the Palestinians left - I never said it's solely the order of their leaders, that's old school thought. But it wasn't that Zionist soldiers kicked them out with bayonets or artillery, as you have us believe.

The war started out with the aggression of the Palestinians. They then called upon their allies from 6 different Arab countries to assist them, even though they've already managed to kill 2,000 Jews by 1948. Atrocities have been committed on both sides, but the difference is that being that the Zionists have been dragged into this war and it was defensive war for them, their goal wasn't to wipe out the Palestinians, as opposed to the very obvious goal of the Palestinians - to kill all the Jews in the land. They've called other countries to assist them. And it's true that maybe some Palestinians were chased away by the Zionists, vast majority from panic without even seeing one Zionist soldier. It's also true that there was an order issued by the Arab Higher Committee, to clear the land for the approaching genocide. Just look at how Arab leaders have been talking during that time, to understand what was the goal of that war. It's also true that in many mixed cities, the Jewish leaders asked from the Arab population to stay - Haifa is a very good example of it:

District Police Headquarters

(C.I.D.)

P.O.B. 700.

Haifa.

26th April, 1948.

S E C R E T

A/A.I.G., C.I.D.

Subject:- General Situation Haifa District.

Haifa remains quiet. Yesterday produced a noticeable change in the general atmosphere and businesses and shops in the lower town were open for the first time in many days. Traffic started to move normally around the town and people returning to the places of business filled the streets. In fact, Haifa presented a more normal appearance than it had done for a long while. Some Arabs were seen moving among the Jews in the lower town and German Colony area and these were allowed free and unmolested passage. An appeal has been made to the Arabs by the Jews to reopen their shops and businesses in order to relieve the difficulties of feeding the Arab population. Evacuation was still going on yesterday and several trips were made by 'Z' craft to Acre. Roads too, were crowded with people leaving Haifa with all their belongings. At a meeting yesterday afternoon Arab leaders reiterated their determination to evacuate the entire Arab population and they have been given the loan of ten 3-ton military trucks as from this morning to assist the evacuation.

Yesterday morning a Jew attempted to pass the drop barrier of Police H.Q. facing Palmers Gate wheeling a barrow. He was shot and killed by a Police sentry.

At 0640 hrs. yesterday Tireh village was again attacked with mortar fire. Casualties and damage not known.

A report has been received from Military to the effect that at 23.50 hrs. yesterday Jews attacked Acre from the direction of Ein Hamifratz and Tall al Pukhkhar. An advance Party succeeded in demolishing three houses in the Manshiya Quarter and then heavy mortar fire was directed at the town. Several mortar bombs landed in Acre Prison and all the inmates have escaped. The British Warden staff are safe. Military proceeded to the scene and opened fire with artillery on Ein Hemifratz. The Jews thereupon withdrew and a convoy of 11 vehicles was seen proceeding in the direction of Haifa. Casualties to both sides are not known.

(A.J. Bidmead.)

for SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

Copy:-.District Commissioner, Haifa

Superintendent of Police, Haifa

File

Source:

And let's see what the newspapers of that time said:

The Economist, a frequent critic of the Zionists, reported on October 2, 1948: “Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”

Time's report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) was similar: “The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city....By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.”

Even one of your heroic New Historians, Benny Morris, confirms this in his book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited:

“Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages in certain areas, lest their inhabitants ‘treacherously’ acquiesce in Israeli rule or hamper Arab military deployments." p. 590,

He then concludes: “There can be no exaggerating the importance of these arly Arab-initiated evacuations in the demoralization, and eventual exodus, of the remaining rural and urban populations”.

"The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: 'Any opposition to this order...is an obstacle to the holy war...and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts' (Morris, Middle Eastern Studies, January 1986).

Morris also documented that the Arab Higher Committee ordered the evacuation of “several dozen villages, as well as the removal of dependents from dozens more” in April-July 1948. “The invading Arab armies also occasionally ordered whole villages to depart, so as not to be in their way” (p. 592).

Morris also said in the same book (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited) that in early May units of the Arab Legion reportedly ordered the evacuation of all women and children from the town of Beisan. The Arab Liberation Army was also reported to have ordered the evacuation of another village south of Haifa. The departure of the women and children, Morris says, “tended to sap the morale of the menfolk who were left behind to guard the homes and fields, contributing ultimately to the final evacuation of villages. Such two-tier evacuation-women and children first, the men following weeks later-occurred in Qumiya in the Jezreel Valley, among the Awarna bedouin in Haifa Bay and in various other places.”

The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London during that time, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs: “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re­enter and retake possession of their country.”

And in his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-­49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:

"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return."

So trying to create a picture as if it were the Zionists that started that war with the attempt to wipe out the Palestinian majority, is just not true.

Again, I do not, and never did, claim that it was solely these orders and made the Palestinians flee. Obviously, only 500-600,000 left (according to the Palestinians, it's 800,000), and 156,000 stayed, which means that 25-30% of the Palestinians did not leave. However, the war, started by the Palestinians, and the invasion of 6 foreign armies into such a small land, and the fact that this war was almost 2 years long, and fightings and perhaps even atrocities committed by some revenge-filled Irgun and Lehi soldiers, also took important role in this. And one must not forget that his war was started by the Palestinians, not the Jews. It so the results of this war lend primarily on the shoulders of the Palestinians and their leadership. Couple that with the obvious documentation that their leadership also called upon them to leave, and the picture is clear.

Again, I will repeat - the reason for the conflict is hatred of the Arabs (perpetuated by religion or nationalism, empowered by Israel's mistakes in it's quest of self-defense) towards Jews and the possibility that they'll have a sovereignty in the region. As soon as that disappears, there will be peace.

Btw, how is that different from the expulsion of the Sudete Germans after WW2? Actually, that expulsion was even worse, as the war has ended, and these Germans haven't done anything accept they did collaborate with the Nazi regime.

And how come they have been integrated into German society in Germany, people with the same ethnicity and the same religion and the same language, yet the Palestinians have been put into camps and have been ripped any basic human right in the surrounding Arab countries.

I think you try really hard to make Israel the bad guy here, and it just doesn't go well with the facts, I'm sorry.

As for your claim that "the Zionist agenda which upset the largely peaceful multi-cultural balance of the land which had existed for hundreds of years before." - sorry, nope. I've heard this "Muslims and Jews and Christians lived together peacefully until the Zionists came!" lie many times, it's simply not true. Whenever Muslims had the chance, and there was no powerful regime keeping them from doing so, they would rampage on the Jewish community in the area. Sometimes these anti-Semitic sentiments were even used by the regime itself, to create chaos.

That was the case of the 1834 and the 1837 massacres in Safed. That was the cases of the massacres against Jews committed in the 18th century, 16th century, and so on. So the pretty utopian picture you try to present is nothing but BS, and revision of history.

If they could get away with it, you know there would be no Arabs in Israel.

I'm sorry I do not use a very biased article covering a very problematic speech to judge a person. I judge them by their actions. The truth is that Netanyahu is our Prime minister for 3 years now. The truth is that Lieberman is our Minister of Foreign Affairs. The truth is that not only did nothing bad happen to the Israeli Palestinians (a term that Yamato seem to be allergic to, because the existence of free and safe Palestinians in Israel would burst his delusional "Israel = Third Reich" world), their economic situation is improving with the rest of the Israelis, and the construction in the settlements has been halted for 10 months. Yep, what a fascist this Netanyahu .

Also, you don't even see the irony of your words: "If they could get away with it" - which means that even if what you say is true, and Netanyahu and Liberman were two racists fascists who want to kill all the Palestinians, and they were voted into power so it must mean all Israelis want that as well - still, something would keep them away from this dream. And what is it, should I ask? America? Please.... Netanyahu and Obama aren't the best friends anyhow (plus isn't he and the rest of the Jews actually run American and control Obama? ). Nope. It's Israeli democracy and it's judicial system, which is strong and would have prevented such things from happening. There is a law in Israel that racist parties cannot run for parliament. This law has been enforced back in 1984 to prevent the radical right wing Kahana party from running.

It's frustrating to see how your arguments trying to prove Israel and Zionism are the worse thing in the world, racist fascist ideologies, are falling one by one, ain't it?

Edited January 18, 2012 by Erikl

[Q24]

Oh my, I've touched a sacred cow it seems, and now the pro-Palestinians are rampaging without an end.

Q24, I do not accept your claim, "Yes, the whole concept of Israel as a ‘Jewish State’ is reliant on a policy of ethnic cleansing." - it is completely your views, and maybe on par with some right wing extremists but was never a mainstream agenda, doesn't matter how many times your repeat a lie, it's still a lie.

It is also the view of Israeli historians after studying documents of the time. Of course you do not accept it – it’s not what you want to hear. The only problem with your own version of history, is that interested people will look up the facts of the matter for themselves.

Anyhow, is Benny Morris a rampaging pro-Palestinian too?

[Erikl]

It is also the view of Israeli historians after studying documents of the time. Of course you do not accept it – it’s not what you want to hear. The only problem with your own version of history, is that interested people will look up the facts of the matter for themselves.

Nope, it's the idea and view of a small minority of hard left wing post-Zionist Israelis, that actually cause more damage to a all ready slandered country than anything else. But, being that Israel is a democracy, we have to tolerate them as well. And as for Benny Morris, he's good to quote against Israel right? but when I give you here quotes that actually burst your views it's just being ignored? I have a feeling you didn't read my post at all, and so there is no point in this discussion if only one side is responsive while the other just keep on repeating his views constantly.

[Q24]

Nope, it's the idea and view of a small minority of hard left wing post-Zionist Israelis, that actually cause more damage to a all ready slandered country than anything else. But, being that Israel is a democracy, we have to tolerate them as well. And as for Benny Morris, he's good to quote against Israel right? but when I give you here quotes that actually burst your views it's just being ignored? I have a feeling you didn't read my post at all, and so there is no point in this discussion if only one side is responsive while the other just keep on repeating his views constantly.

You have not supplied any quotes from Benny Morris which contradict those I provided where he is very clear about the ethnic cleansing involved in creation of Israel based on study of documentation from the time.

Your feeling that I did not read all of your post is correct – sorry, I’ve heard enough to know that you will provide a completely slanted, one-sided view of history every time. I don’t see your views as history at all, rather Zionist propaganda. It doesn’t do you any favors – like I said, people will only fact check the full story for themselves.

Better to come clean like Morris did on that fact if you want people to listen.

[Wyvernkeeper]

Hilarious! You said this...

It is also the view of Israeli historians after studying documents of the time. Of course you do not accept it – it’s not what you want to hear. The only problem with your own version of history, is that interested people will look up the facts of the matter for themselves.

Followed by this.... less than an hour later.

Your feeling that I did not read all of your post is correct – sorry, I’ve heard enough to know that you will provide a completely slanted, one-sided view of history every time. I don’t see your views as history at all, rather Zionist propaganda. It doesn’t do you any favors – like I said, people will only fact check the full story for themselves

Telling somebody that they don't accept what they don't want to hear, then following it up with a proclamation that you won't accept the legitimacy of their statement... A little 'do as I say, not as I do.'

Some top-quality UMming right there...

Edited January 18, 2012 by Wyvernkeeper

[Q24]

Hilarious! You said this...

There is a difference between not accepting documented historical fact, as Erikl does not, and my losing interest in repeated skewed historical visions due to his obvious vested interest. I already know the gist of anything Erikl is going to say – it’s everyone’s fault but Israel’s (who had nothing to do with anything, ever).

Do you accept Benny Morris’ statements regarding ethnic cleansing, Wyvernkeeper?

[Erikl]

There is a difference between not accepting documented historical fact, as Erikl does not, and my losing interest in repeated skewed historical visions due to his obvious vested interest. I already know the gist of anything Erikl is going to say – it’s everyone’s fault but Israel’s (who had nothing to do with anything, ever).

Do you accept Benny Morris’ statements regarding ethnic cleansing, Wyvernkeeper?

LMAO!

"not accepting documented historical fact" - as this is exactly what I do! I provided here maps, quotes, historical papers, and even quoted Benny Morris which you seem to do as well, and all you've been doing is simply telling me "that's not history", based on what? oh wait, then you quote some "savepalestine.com" sites and claim it's a non-bias, historically correct site. When you claim that our current Prime Minister wants to get rid of the Palestinians and commit ethnic cleansing, you base your claim on a left-leaning Haaretz, but don't bother reading the entire speech anyhow, and when faced with the facts that his actions contradict your theory and suspicion, you don't provide anything, just keep on saying "I proved it". Yet you didn't. When I give you historical information showing the Palestinians repeatedly declined any peaceful resolution, first to co-exist with the Zionists then to divide the land - you didn't provide anything to contradict that. Just keep on your rabid anti-Israeli bashing, and keep on claiming I do not provide history.

As for your "You have not supplied any quotes from Benny Morris which contradict those I provided where he is very clear about the ethnic cleansing involved in creation of Israel based on study of documentation from the time.", really? Let's see:

Even one of your heroic New Historians, Benny Morris, confirms this in his book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited:

“Arab officers ordered the complete evacuation of specific villages in certain areas, lest their inhabitants ‘treacherously’ acquiesce in Israeli rule or hamper Arab military deployments." p. 590,

He then concludes: “There can be no exaggerating the importance of these arly Arab-initiated evacuations in the demoralization, and eventual exodus, of the remaining rural and urban populations”.

"The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: 'Any opposition to this order...is an obstacle to the holy war...and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts' (Morris, Middle Eastern Studies, January 1986).

Morris also documented that the Arab Higher Committee ordered the evacuation of “several dozen villages, as well as the removal of dependents from dozens more” in April-July 1948. “The invading Arab armies also occasionally ordered whole villages to depart, so as not to be in their way” (p. 592).

Morris also said in the same book (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited) that in early May units of the Arab Legion reportedly ordered the evacuation of all women and children from the town of Beisan. The Arab Liberation Army was also reported to have ordered the evacuation of another village south of Haifa. The departure of the women and children, Morris says, “tended to sap the morale of the menfolk who were left behind to guard the homes and fields, contributing ultimately to the final evacuation of villages. Such two-tier evacuation-women and children first, the men following weeks later-occurred in Qumiya in the Jezreel Valley, among the Awarna bedouin in Haifa Bay and in various other places.”

I have also provided quotes from newspapers of the time, from Arab leaders, and so on. And before you claim I spread Zionist propaganda (as if Zionism is some sort of totalitarian ideology aka Nazism or Communism), as you claim, read exactly what I said:

As for why the Palestinians left - I never said it's solely the order of their leaders, that's old school thought. But it wasn't that Zionist soldiers kicked them out with bayonets or artillery, as you have us believe.

The war started out with the aggression of the Palestinians. They then called upon their allies from 6 different Arab countries to assist them, even though they've already managed to kill 2,000 Jews by 1948. Atrocities have been committed on both sides, but the difference is that being that the Zionists have been dragged into this war and it was defensive war for them, their goal wasn't to wipe out the Palestinians, as opposed to the very obvious goal of the Palestinians - to kill all the Jews in the land. They've called other countries to assist them. And it's true that maybe some Palestinians were chased away by the Zionists, vast majority from panic without even seeing one Zionist soldier. It's also true that there was an order issued by the Arab Higher Committee, to clear the land for the approaching genocide. Just look at how Arab leaders have been talking during that time, to understand what was the goal of that war. It's also true that in many mixed cities, the Jewish leaders asked from the Arab population to stay - Haifa is a very good example of it:

And also:

Again, I do not, and never did, claim that it was solely these orders and made the Palestinians flee. Obviously, only 500-600,000 left (according to the Palestinians, it's 800,000), and 156,000 stayed, which means that 25-30% of the Palestinians did not leave. However, the war, started by the Palestinians, and the invasion of 6 foreign armies into such a small land, and the fact that this war was almost 2 years long, and fightings and perhaps even atrocities committed by some revenge-filled Irgun and Lehi soldiers, also took important role in this. And one must not forget that his war was started by the Palestinians, not the Jews. It so the results of this war lend primarily on the shoulders of the Palestinians and their leadership. Couple that with the obvious documentation that their leadership also called upon them to leave, and the picture is clear.

Yep, a very one sided position . I based my opinions and positions on facts.

While on the other hand, both you and ex, and KoS and ofcourse Yamato here keep on completely whitewashing any responsibility the Palestinians had, twisting history to blame solely Israel, and then you have the nerve to say that I AM the one sided. LOL.

[Wyvernkeeper]

There is a difference between not accepting documented historical fact, as Erikl does not, and my losing interest in repeated skewed historical visions due to his obvious vested interest. I already know the gist of anything Erikl is going to say – it’s everyone’s fault but Israel’s (who had nothing to do with anything, ever).

Do you accept Benny Morris’ statements regarding ethnic cleansing, Wyvernkeeper?

I accept that Israel has committed crimes against it's Palestinian population, as have all the surrounding Arab countries. I don't believe that the sentiments that Morris expresses are admirable, but I can see what has driven him to make that statement.

Anyway, there are thousands of Israelis that would disagree with his attitude, why are you asking me anyway. It has nothing to do with the debate.

Erik is actually quite reasonable, usually accepting negative criticisms of Israel.. Just because he also knows enough about the situation to give arguments against some of your statements does not be you should by proxy, stop listening to what he has to say. That is a little childish... I have argued with him too, over the same issue, but there was more back and forth than this discussion, as we were able to temper our disagreements with hearing what the other was actually saying.

You seem to proclaim everything that condemns your own worldview as 'Zionist propoganda,' yet accuse Eriks attitude of suggesting that 'nothing had anything to do with Israel.' Do you see the hypocritical conflict in this? If you have already defined what he is going to say as 'propoganda' and by doing so instinctively dismissed his argument, how can you expect to gain anything more from this discussion than the warm fuzzy feeling of berating an Israeli.

[+and-then]

and am sure you can't read right i didn't say anything about destroying israel

israel exist in ME only fool would deny that and it's probably gonna keep going to exist no matter what

but wheather it exist equally with palestinians or not is the deal here

now before you go around trying to teach me some history lession which your words makes you look like you don't know heck about history of the area

you trying to make the times of nasser and those times look alike ? that's a big lol

what you should reliaze about the new ME is finally the goverments will represent their people's ambitions yeah

no longer dictators to protect israel by surpressing people

and believe when i say it's going to take a million of arabic countries people for you to find one that does like israel .. in case you did find any

israel need to reconsider their situation .. you can't live with nighbors peacefully while you kill their brothers in your country

and don't think for the min that this egypt current goverment is what represent the people .. the revolution in egypt still going on

it'll soon be all over middle east .. no exceptions and the palestinians cause will profit greatly from it

you see .. things tend to be different when all your nighbors close their borders to you won't let you use their ground or air .. ain't that a peaceful way of opposing israel ?

you on the other hand talking about nasser time what a big laugh .. you mean the time where dictators conspired against him

when he was in lebanon when israel was nearly going crazy coz the palestinian resistance and asked their beloved dictators for help .. when they answered quickly

you should read more about history of the area before reminding me of it

What kind of government the Egyptians decide on is their business. Most democratic countries get exactly the government they deserve.

My reference to Nasser wasn't really about the man but rather his dream of pan arabism. Arabs don't unify...they fight each other. If they actually did unify as they did in '48,'67 and'73 they would probably lose again and give Israel back the Sinai and all of Judea and Samaria(west bank). The only real jeopardy the Israeli's face is the cost of their own humanity. They want peace and want to trust and they forget that the enemy they face has been told by his "god" that it's okay to lie, steal and cheat if it helps you to win.

[Knight Of Shadows]

remember the egypt lybia and syria united ?

beside god didn't tell us which enemy to oppose

israel actions made it self an enemy for arabs

i think you shouldn't bring up this " god " thing as criticism

israel was given land elsewhere did they accept ? no they wanted the land " promised to them by god " eh ?

taste of your own medicine ?

and nope you can't and steal to reach your goal by the way that's not part of our religion if that's what you hinting

the purpose does not justify the means to it

as for arabs uniting it sounds more close than ever bro

and again for when they united .. remember that israel nearly lost ?! or you overlooked that part

let me give you a hint .. usa + forced cease fire + supplying weapons to israel

you know if it wasn't for that ceasefire israel would probably not exist the way they do today ?

however am peaceful person i don't believe in wars due to innocent people dies in the progress

like i said .. closing borders with israel by their nighbors is enough to make israel beg on it's knees

and give palestinians their full rights equal land .. and every one is happy

but greedy behavior by israel will only bring them more enemies .. therefor their action's result what's got them this far

not coz our supposed god told us so

[Q24]

I accept that Israel has committed crimes against it's Palestinian population, as have all the surrounding Arab countries. I don't believe that the sentiments that Morris expresses are admirable, but I can see what has driven him to make that statement.

Anyway, there are thousands of Israelis that would disagree with his attitude, why are you asking me anyway. It has nothing to do with the debate.

Erik is actually quite reasonable, usually accepting negative criticisms of Israel.. Just because he also knows enough about the situation to give arguments against some of your statements does not be you should by proxy, stop listening to what he has to say. That is a little childish... I have argued with him too, over the same issue, but there was more back and forth than this discussion, as we were able to temper our disagreements with hearing what the other was actually saying.

You seem to proclaim everything that condemns your own worldview as 'Zionist propoganda,' yet accuse Eriks attitude of suggesting that 'nothing had anything to do with Israel.' Do you see the hypocritical conflict in this? If you have already defined what he is going to say as 'propoganda' and by doing so instinctively dismissed his argument, how can you expect to gain anything more from this discussion than the warm fuzzy feeling of berating an Israeli.

I’m not sure if that was a “yes” or “no” to the question but it is clear you are a million miles ahead of Erikl. I asked you so that I could determine if his outlook is the standard from your side of the debate. Your response suggests the bias in his argument to be at the extreme end.

I don’t find the version of history Erikl presents to be reasonable in any way, shape or form. It is highly misleading, bordering on a lie (not so much on a point by point basis but the big picture presented). I don’t even see a real argument, just a blatantly selective viewing of history that will be instantly apparent to anyone who looks. It’s the same history I have read but with Israel nonsensically absolved of any responsibility, when any neutral observer can see Zionism is the main antagonist in upsetting the balance.

It’s not that I mean to ignore him but this is repeated in every post to the point I know what’s coming. For example, in his post #304 I managed to read up to, “Let's set one thing straight: had the Palestinians accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee.” It’s the Palestinians’ fault that a Jewish State was imposed on them you see! If they had just quit kicking and agreed to Jewish rule, there would have been no refugees! At that point my brain actually shuts down on anything more he has to say. It’s not because I disagree, but due to the sheer arrogance and injustice of what is said.

I’m not “berating an Israeli”, rather refuting bias with accepted history and conclusion from a neutral observer – the propaganda should not go unopposed. I cannot see any peace whilst Israel cannot look in the mirror and be honest about wrongs which initiated the present situation, instead of attempting to engineer history in avoidance. Apparently that sort of indoctrination works in Israel, thought not so well outside of its borders.

If more were like Benny Morris I think we would see a huge swing in favor of Israel.

[Wyvernkeeper]

I’m not sure if that was a “yes” or “no” to the question but it is clear you are a million miles ahead of Erikl. I asked you so that I could determine if his outlook is the standard from your side of the debate. Your response suggests the bias in his argument to be at the extreme end.

I don’t find the version of history Erikl presents to be reasonable in any way, shape or form. It is highly misleading, bordering on a lie (not so much on a point by point basis but the big picture presented). I don’t even see a real argument, just a blatantly selective viewing of history that will be instantly apparent to anyone who looks. It’s the same history I have read but with Israel nonsensically absolved of any responsibility, when any neutral observer can see Zionism is the main antagonist in upsetting the balance.

It’s not that I mean to ignore him but this is repeated in every post to the point I know what’s coming. For example, in his post #304 I managed to read up to, “Let's set one thing straight: had the Palestinians accepted the 1947 UN resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee.” It’s the Palestinians’ fault that a Jewish State was imposed on them you see! If they had just quit kicking and agreed to Jewish rule, there would have been no refugees! At that point my brain actually shuts down on anything more he has to say. It’s not because I disagree, but due to the sheer arrogance and injustice of what is said.

I’m not “berating an Israeli”, rather refuting bias with accepted history and conclusion from a neutral observer – the propaganda should not go unopposed. I cannot see any peace whilst Israel cannot look in the mirror and be honest about wrongs which initiated the present situation, instead of attempting to engineer history in avoidance. Apparently that sort of indoctrination works in Israel, thought not so well outside of its borders.

If more were like Benny Morris I think we would see a huge swing in favor of Israel.

I doubt it, haters always got to hate!

You may consider yourself objective and neutral but it doesn't come across as so. Obviously, everyone has bias... I do, Erik does, you certainly do. The trick with discussion is to still manage to listen even if you disagree fundamentally with what they are saying.

For example, you complained that Erik was whitewashing the Israeli side of things, and in response he acknowledged the dubious actions of the Irgun. Yet still you argue for his 'selective viewing of history.' And you speak without irony of the 'arrogance and injustice.'

Refusing to hear the words of the other does no good for the discussion.

____

I think you are forgetting that had the Palestinians accepted the partition they too would have got their own land, so they wouldn't have been 'under Jewish rule' anyway. Erik is presenting the Israeli side but that does not automatically render his statements propaganda. He has presented a lot of documentary evidence from Arab and Israeli sources which have since been dismissed by those challenging him. He hasn't tried to 'absolve responsibility,' but rather present the side of the facts that would otherwise be willfully ignored by the anti-Israelis. A lot of that goes on, even if the anti-Israel left like to perceive themselves as the vanguard of honesty and true history - the fact is that both sides are equally guilty of at least misrepresentation, at points crossing into full-bodied revisionism.

____

If you want people to respect your opinions then take the time to read what they write... Especially if they are your chief antagonist in a discussion. Your open admittance that you 'knew what was coming,' does nothing more than prove your own inherent bias, it shows that you have already made up your mind. As a result of not reading the whole of Eriks post you missed all the citations from Arab newspapers, and then shortly after accused him of presenting 'skewed historical visions' when in fact he was citing supporting arguments, from Arab media.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Wyvernkeeper

[Erikl]

If they had just quit kicking and agreed to Jewish rule, there would have been no refugees!

Exactly a fine example of how much the pro-Palestinian camp twist history and suites it to it's own anti-Israeli needs.

Who proposed a Jewish rule?

The exact point of the partition was to prevent any more violence which have escalated to the point were the two sides couldn't co-exist. That wasn't the situation to begin with - it was the situation started by the Palestinians themselves.

It should be pointed also that it's not as if Jews have been invading the land and taking Palestinian owned lands. Not even the pro-Palestinians can claim that pre-1948 - yet they always downgrade what was actually going on back then. Violence just started, according to their narrative. The way they try to present it, is as follow: Colonialist European Jews with no connection whatsoever but religious fanaticism came after WW2, playing on the holocaust card, invaded Palestine (which is always presented as an already existing state), kicked out all the Palestinians to become a majority, and put them in camps, deprived of any civil right. This is the pro-Palestinian narrative, more or less, and it has no basis in history whatsoever. To summarize so far the importance of everything I put here on this thread, I will refute (easily) all of these claims:

1. "Colonialist European Jews with no connection whatsoever but religious fanaticism came after WW2" - Wrong. Jews have existed (albeit as a minority since the 4th century AD) continuously to inhabit the land for at least 3208 years (first mention in an Egyptian Stelle). Jews were also always immigrating to the area, that was always part of some other regional empire since they've lost it in 135 AD to the Romans. The entire Jewish ethos and culture revolves around this piece of land. As for religiousness of the first Zionists - mainstream Zionism was secular, socialist and it's biggest criticizer was from religious Jews, who thought that the mere idea of speaking Hebrew on a daily basis to be blasphemous. Most of the Zionists came as refugees from their own countries of origins, not some delegates as in the case of colonialists, and they were a persecuted minority, not part of the majority. Also, first Zionist immigration was in 1880 - some 60 years before the holocaust. Tel Aviv became a city in 1909 - 30 years before the Holocaust began.

2. "invaded Palestine (which is always presented as an already existing state)" - judging by the map I've provided here, there was no separate country called Palestine. The region was part of the Ottoman Empire, and was divided into three different districts. It's people weren't called Palestinians - they were part of the Arabic speaking mostly Muslim society spreading from the Khorsan district in Iran to Morocco in the West. Before that, it was part of another regional empire - Mamluke empire (from 1200s to the 1500s), where it was also divided to three different districts. Before that, it was part of the Crusaders' Kingdom of Jerusalem - that only time since Judea lost it's independence to the Romans that a state with it's capital as Jerusalem unified the entire territory. But, ofcourse, it's not politically correct to recognize the Crusaders as legitimate rulers, so we won't remind them . Before that, it was shortly occupied (for 400 years) by the Arabs, who also divided it to three different districts and created a whole new city to act as the capital city - Ramle, NOT Jerusalem. It's people weren't called Palestinians as well. Before that it was part of the Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantine Empire - which continued to divide the land to three different districts - Palaestina I, Palaestina II. Before that, in the first century AD (135 AD), the Romans disbanded the Roman Jewish provinces Iudaea and Galilee after crushing series of Jewish revolts starting in 70 AD, and renamed the land Syria Palaestina, and incorporated it into the larger district Syria. So, as can be seen - there was never a country, or a people, called Palestine or Palestinians, with the last sovereign people were either the Crusaders or the Jews.

3. "kicked out all the Palestinians to become a majority" - actually, when the Jews declared their state in 1948, they were still a minority - and didn't expect to become a majority over night. The war was instigated by the Arabs. The Arabs and their leaders spoke of genocide - this is how the newspapers documented from that time. They also called upon the Arabs to leave the land so not to get in the way of the invading Arab countries. The problem is - that they lost in this genocidal war that they've started and the result is refugees, that are kept as generational refugees (even though there is no language barrier, no religion problem preventing them from being admitted into society in those countries).

4. "and put them in camps, deprived of any civil right" - again - none of the Palestinians which found themselves in Israel after the 1948 war were put into camps. Even refugees that stayed in the region - were given full citizenship and were taken from UNRWA's responsibility by Israeli request. On the other hand, Arabs have put Palestinians in camps, striped them of any civil right or sometimes even work permits, and not just the refugees but their children and grand children. Even under Palestinian rule since 1993, the PA didn't dismantle a single refugee camp in the disputed territories, despite the billions of dollars paid to them in the past 20 years.

I don’t find the version of history Erikl presents to be reasonable in any way, shape or form. It is highly misleading, bordering on a lie (not so much on a point by point basis but the big picture presented)

LAMO. So my facts (point by point basis) are not a lie, but the big picture - which means the logical conclusion coming from them - is considered a lie?

You keep on contradicting yourself, and it stems from the fact that you're losing with facts, history and the logical conclusions coming from them. You keep onto your one-sided, twisted view, until it hurts. As Wyvernkeeper said, it is childish. And the only reason why he's "a million miles ahead of Erikl", is because he said "I accept that Israel has committed crimes against it's Palestinian population", and because I'm a filthy Zionist .

refuting bias with accepted history and conclusion from a neutral observer – the propaganda should not go unopposed.

Hilarious! Which facts? which accepted history? your based historians are the controversial new historians which I've also quoted, and the rest is...? nothing. No historical facts, only ranting and preaching how evil Israel is and your narrative of history. 99% of the quotes I've posted here are from wikipedia. How much neutral can you get?

I cannot see any peace whilst Israel cannot look in the mirror and be honest about wrongs which initiated the present situation,

It actually does and did, there is nothing like self-beating and we Jews are good at. However, the wrongs which we did, as I've explained and demonstrated, are not as half, not as 1% of what you and your like keep on blaming us for. And as long as you keep empowering the victimhood of the Palestinians, as long as you do not tackle the real issue which is racism against Jews and hatred - there will be no peace.

[Q24]

I doubt it, haters always got to hate!

You may consider yourself objective and neutral but it doesn't come across as so. Obviously, everyone has bias... I do, Erik does, you certainly do. The trick with discussion is to still manage to listen even if you disagree fundamentally with what they are saying.

Refusing to hear the words of the other does no good for the discussion.

This is another thing I’ve noticed – Zionist supporters are paranoid as hell. All one needs do is disagree with the policies and that’s it… you hate Jews, you’re pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli, you’re racist! It would be amusing if not so sad – I guess this is an end result of Jewish history.

Yes everyone holds bias - my own does not come from hate but a detached viewing of the facts. I have listened to Erikl and understand his view (my bias here was formed after talking with him, not before) - it is not possible to discuss with him.

I think you are forgetting that had the Palestinians accepted the partition they too would have got their own land, so they wouldn't have been 'under Jewish rule' anyway.

Why should Palestinians have agreed to relocate or submit to Jewish rule?

[Q24]

Exactly a fine example of how much the pro-Palestinian camp twist history and suites it to it's own anti-Israeli needs.

Ok, I'm just going to keep reading...

Who proposed a Jewish rule?

I'm really struggling now…

The exact point of the partition was to prevent any more violence which have escalated to the point were the two sides couldn't co-exist. That wasn't the situation to begin with - it was the situation started by the Palestinians themselves.

Shutdown immiment…

It should be pointed also that it's not as if Jews have been invading the land and taking Palestinian owned lands.

*Zip*

I cannot read a whole post of such nonsense.

[Goodnite]

אלוהים לשמור על ישראל בטוחה.

[Erikl]

Ok, I'm just going to keep reading...

I'm really struggling now…

Shutdown immiment…

*Zip*

I cannot read a whole post of such nonsense.

When you'll crawl outside of your cradle, start reading the history I've provided in previous posts, and provide some facts yourself, you can come back and put your 5 cents (I have a deja vu here ).

Good luck.

[Erikl]

I doubt it, haters always got to hate!

You may consider yourself objective and neutral but it doesn't come across as so. Obviously, everyone has bias... I do, Erik does, you certainly do. The trick with discussion is to still manage to listen even if you disagree fundamentally with what they are saying.

For example, you complained that Erik was whitewashing the Israeli side of things, and in response he acknowledged the dubious actions of the Irgun. Yet still you argue for his 'selective viewing of history.' And you speak without irony of the 'arrogance and injustice.'

Refusing to hear the words of the other does no good for the discussion.

____

I think you are forgetting that had the Palestinians accepted the partition they too would have got their own land, so they wouldn't have been 'under Jewish rule' anyway. Erik is presenting the Israeli side but that does not automatically render his statements propaganda. He has presented a lot of documentary evidence from Arab and Israeli sources which have since been dismissed by those challenging him. He hasn't tried to 'absolve responsibility,' but rather present the side of the facts that would otherwise be willfully ignored by the anti-Israelis. A lot of that goes on, even if the anti-Israel left like to perceive themselves as the vanguard of honesty and true history - the fact is that both sides are equally guilty of at least misrepresentation, at points crossing into full-bodied revisionism.

____

If you want people to respect your opinions then take the time to read what they write... Especially if they are your chief antagonist in a discussion. Your open admittance that you 'knew what was coming,' does nothing more than prove your own inherent bias, it shows that you have already made up your mind. As a result of not reading the whole of Eriks post you missed all the citations from Arab newspapers, and then shortly after accused him of presenting 'skewed historical visions' when in fact he was citing supporting arguments, from Arab media.

With some obvious disagreements, thank you . I'm waiting for our debates in the future .

[Q24]

When you'll crawl outside of your cradle, start reading the history I've provided in previous posts, and provide some facts yourself, you can come back and put your 5 cents (I have a deja vu here ).

Good luck.

I entered this thread in two places to present two facts: -

• That Palestine was of an Arab majority that had a Jewish State imposed on them.
  
• That the Arab population of Palestine suffered from ethnic cleansing of the land.
  

Neither are in question.

I believe these points are the foundation that props up everything else in explaining why Israel receives much of the criticism it does today.

In some alternate reality where a Jewish state always existed and had done peacefully for hundreds of years, do you think I would have any sympathy for Arabs who attacked Israel? Would I even complain when Israel responded disproportionately to rocket attacks? Would I be bothered with the appearance that Israel wants Arabs out of the country to maintain a Jewish majority? No I would not – I’d be supporting Israel.

Mind you… I’d still wonder what Israel was doing building settlements on the Arab land next door.

Plus another few things that I won’t go into.

But anyhow, those two facts do exist and everything Israel does now is in light of them. They explain and justify the Arab resentment of Israel in a way that any neutral can understand. In your belittling or even denial of those facts, it can only push the objective viewer further away from Israeli policy through adding deceit and lack of regret to the list. I can only imagine how this type of behavior must infuriate Arabs.

I think I’ve said it already, but if Israel cannot accept its creation was to the detriment of another people and do what is possible to make amends now, promises from God or not, one day it will be too late. What sympathy will anyone, most of all the neighboring Arabs, show for Israel when the balance of power takes a swing. The thought of what could occur is terrifying, but it seems Israel will not help itself.

Israel holds all the cards right now but are playing them in a potentially disastrous way.

In the end, I’m worried for the Jewish people if the situation continues, Erikl.

[Erikl]

That Palestine was of an Arab majority that had a Jewish State imposed on them.

This one is debatable and I've provided enough information to show that it's not as simple as that. But, you keep on ignoring that, providing nothing except your ranting and repeating this.

That the Arab population of Palestine suffered from ethnic cleansing of the land.

Which is a lie if one will deduct that it's the Jews who were responsible for it - which is actually what you're saying. Let's be honest. The complete sentence should be: "That the Arab population of Palestine suffered from ethnic cleansing of the land carried out by the Zionist Jews who planned this all along to create their ethnically pure Jewish state.". This is the full out blown idea that goes in your head. Yet, it's a complete lie, and I've proven it, must to your frustration, and your response? "no! you're lying! ahhhh!".

Again, nothing to refute what I've posted here, just more and more rants, or quotes from some very biased sources.

But anyhow, those two facts do exist and everything Israel does now is in light of them.

Few posts ago, you claim you do not want to dwell into history, yet here we go - you do that again, only when it's your unfounded history. You claim facts - while they are nothing more than your opinions. You really wish them to be facts, because you base your entire world view for this subject on these two "facts" - yet no matter how hard you try, they are not facts. You've yet to refute or address the points I've made in my last informative post, just ranting and crying that you know the facts.

This also leads me to the following:

They explain and justify the Arab resentment of Israel in a way that any neutral can understand. In your belittling or even denial of those facts, it can only push the objective viewer further away from Israeli policy through adding deceit and lack of regret to the list. I can only imagine how this type of behavior must infuriate Arabs.

I think I’ve said it already, but if Israel cannot accept its creation was to the detriment of another people and do what is possible to make amends now, promises from God or not, one day it will be too late. What sympathy will anyone, most of all the neighboring Arabs, show for Israel when the balance of power takes a swing. The thought of what could occur is terrifying, but it seems Israel will not help itself.

You see, the fact that the Palestinians and their supporters perpetuate these lies is what empowering this conflict and gives hope to the Palestinians that maybe, just maybe, their lies will become the truth, Israel will lose legitimacy, and they can wage their genocidal war against it.

These lies do nothing but continue the catastrophic situation of the Palestinians in eternal refugee status, makes Israel more isolate and less probable to trust anyone, let alone self-delusional Palestinians and their collaborators, and so on.

In the end, I’m worried for the Jewish people if the situation continues, Erikl.

I'm not, thank you. If anything, we've learned no matter how much we yield to our haters, they hate us anyhow. We've won a genocidal war against us when we were only 33% of the population, 3 years after the holocaust, without anyone's support. We now have a military to defend us against anyone who has any more wishes to continue such adventures. No matter how strong and big their propaganda machines are.

[MichaelW]

This is another thing I’ve noticed – Zionist supporters are paranoid as hell. All one needs do is disagree with the policies and that’s it… you hate Jews, you’re pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli, you’re racist! It would be amusing if not so sad – I guess this is an end result of Jewish history.

Yes everyone holds bias - my own does not come from hate but a detached viewing of the facts. I have listened to Erikl and understand his view (my bias here was formed after talking with him, not before) - it is not possible to discuss with him.

Oh, your bias was already there before Erikl turn up in the discussion. Your idea that "well I'm speaking out against Israel so I must be right" isn't exactly the best way to go about this.

Also, one thing I've noticed is apparently, those who support the Palestinians are always claiming some form of moral superority. "I support people who can't grasp the concept of democracy so that makes me better than you" is exactly what I get from people on here.

Why should Palestinians have agreed to relocate or submit to Jewish rule?

The point Erikl is making, and the point that you are missing completely and utterly, is that had they accepted the partition, no one would have left the land. And they would not have been subjected to their rule. The Jews/Israelis would have controlled their respective territories and the Arabs/Palestinians theirs, kind of like how Bosnia functions.

That isn't a hard concept to grasp.

[Q24]

The point Erikl is making, and the point that you are missing completely and utterly, is that had they accepted the partition, no one would have left the land. And they would not have been subjected to their rule. The Jews/Israelis would have controlled their respective territories and the Arabs/Palestinians theirs, kind of like how Bosnia functions.

That isn't a hard concept to grasp.

What of the Palestinians who lived on the land designated Jewish?