Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Yamato

Who are Palestinians?

452 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Wyvernkeeper

Hamas has a history as extremists, but in recent times they have toned down a lot and made some improvements to the population in Gaza. Unfortunately though, they're restricted by Israeli sanctions so we haven't been able to fully see if they've changed their agenda.

I believe everyone interprets Zion the correct way it's perceived, depending from a view point. If Jews interpret it as a yearning for freedom, the arabs interpret it as a yearning for freedom at the expense of others.

Hamas have 'toned down' have they? 680 rockets fired into Israel from Gaza in 2011, oh well, so long as they are 'toning down.'

Also, as I have mentioned before - If news from Palestine is not forthcoming perhaps that has a little to do with Hamas restricting the freedom of foreign journalists last year, preventing freedom of movement and forcing journalists to be 'licensed' by Hamas authorities.

'Some other foreign reporters said they had also been asked to sign forms saying that if any news items critical of Hamas were published, local Palestinian journalists they work with would be held responsible'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15076118

Full credit to the Jews for surviving thousands of years of persecution but, in your words, being ingenuous and open minded means we recognise this persecution (Jews) and ignore other persecution (Palestinians) does it?

No, not at all... You have misunderstood, perhaps deliberately. I was saying that the context of the establishment of Zionism is often forgotten in trying to understand the Isreali mindset, not that the Holocaust excuses the more questionable policies of the Israeli government. If you read the things I have posted on this forum previously you will see how strongly I believe that.

The sole reason Palestinians are in the situation they are right now is security-related, not a racist one.

I agree, and perhaps persecute wasn't the best word. I actually thought about it before I put it down, but my brain wasn't working with enough power to find a better term... I am really really tired today, and I'm juggling my responses with my work, with one eye on the clock... whilst dealing with the problems of hundreds of lazy students who can't be bothered to staple their courseworks before they hand them in (AAAAHHHH - ITS INFURIATING) . Excuse me if my words are rushed and not always well selected.

Edited by Wyvernkeeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Why was partition necessary?

Because of the tensions between Arabs and Jews.

Because Arabs were attacking Jews whenever they had the chance, aka - whenever there was chaos in the land. They did it in the 1830s in two massacres in the city Safed, when the region was in chaos and the regime was weak. Then since that time all the way till the end of the Ottoman period, in 1920, there was no clash or riot.

As explained, the rise of Arab nationalism in the Middle East after WW1 is well documented. Yet you ignore it had anything to do with the conflict.

It just happens to be that after 40 years of Zionist immigration suddenly the Arabs, incited by the nationalist Haj Amin Al-Husseini, started to attack Jews. And not only Zionist Jews - all Jews (as I've shown - Jews were living here well before the Zionist immigration). That was when Jews (Zionist and non-Zionist) were only 15% of the population, in 1920, with only half of them being Zionists.

As you mention, in some 260 years (prior to the 1920s) there had only been two large scale incidents of extreme violence against the Jews back in the 1830s. And from this, you come to the conclusion, “Arabs were attacking Jews whenever they had the chance”. Never mind the roughly 259 years and 11 months of general peace that existed with Arabs and Jews living side by side. In any case, I was actually referring to the new round of tensions that began in the 1920s…

Here you come to the conclusion that “suddenly the Arabs … started to attack the Jews”, like it came from nowhere and without reason other than a difference in cultures. There was nothing sudden about it. It was the continued Zionist campaigning for a Jewish state on the land which understandably provoked the majority Arab population.

So you see, your version of history - that Arabs “suddenly” attack Jews “whenever” they can, simply because one is Arab and the other is Jew – does not stand up to scrutiny.

You even accept this below (“That well may be”), so we can move on…

Why was there tension?

Because Zionists wanted a Jewish state.

That well may be, but Jews had equal claim to the land as any other people, and being that the Zionist didn't want to remove the local native population, they had every right to claim this no-man's land. There was no Palestinian country or state, heck - back then there weren't really a unified ethnic group called Palestinians. They were simply Arabs, the same as in Beirut, Damascus and Amman. Heck, who said that the borders of Palestine, with some 500,000 Arabic-speaking muslims, should be considered Palestine? Let's imagine that only a small part of it was named and allocated to be given to an existing minority, with the Arabs forming just 100,000. Would that be a problem? ofcourse not. The whole problem pro-Palestinians face is that they try to revise history, invent things that didn't exist back then, and try to paint the conflict into their black and white world view.

Wait wait wait… you begin by contradicting yourself. Was it land that everyone living there had “equal” rights to or was it a “no-man’s land”?

Your argument follows the latter assertion giving the impression that Palestine was some empty void where no one had any rights before Israel existed – I’m sure this is what Zionist history would like us all to believe. The fact is, your first assertion is correct – that indeed everyone living there had equal rights to the land. We cannot just redraw the borders to artificially create a new Jewish majority land. Heck, we could have the Jewish community declaring their own state and laws within Britain or the United States today if that’s fair play. So neither the partition, nor to declare the whole land a Jewish state, could be justified accounting for the fact that everyone living there had equal rights. And this is why tension of the 1920s came to be, there are no buts about it.

Therefore the answer is: The partition was necessary because Zionists wanted a Jewish state.

Again, this is your own view. Being that there was no country there to begin with, and that none of the Zionist streams involved removing the native people (which by early Zionist were considered descendants of the original Jewish population that had been converted to Christianity and Islam, btw) as part of their ideology, the only reason for the conflict is the development of nationalism among the local Arab people, starting right after WW1. Before that, there were no clashes. So let me get this straight - people that already lived there (as a minority), have roots in the land going back 3208 years, cannot create their own country in the region, while another group of people, that had nothing to separate them from the other people around them besides being locked behind a border just recently created by colonial powers, that just happens to be a majority in that specific territory that didn't exist in it's current form and size before the colonial power created it - has more rights? please.

Yes that is the view based on the previous established facts, neither of which you refuted through any logical following (see above).

Further than that, whether Zionists intended to remove the native people or whether it was a by-product of the situation, the fact is that this did occur. It is the end result of the tensions caused by a Zionist desire for a Jewish state.

And I think you got it straight – a 3,208 year old claim does not justify a new Jewish state in modern times.

I acknowledge that both Jews and Palestinians have equal claims. I also acknowledge that Palestinians could have lived with Jews in a one state solution, as wanted by the Zionist movement to begin with (no one really expected that Jews would be able to have their own country with a majority, and even in it's peak, before the creation of the state of Israel, the Zionist community didn't make more than 33% of the population in the region).

Can you explain how a Jewish state with an Arab majority would have worked?

I mean, what would have made it Jewish except for in name?

Tell that to the three crosses that appear on the british flag, and the anthem that starts "god save the queen", both of which are highly religious and goes against Jewish and Muslim beliefs.

You have a point there. Personally I think religion and all that “God save the Queen” talk is outdated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

So you openly whitewash Hamas? What kind of tone down, exactly? it's still hold onto it's antisemitic covenant. Another racist of low expectations here, guys :rolleyes:

:sleepy: {Scratches being called a racist and antisemitic from the list, still awaiting to be called biased, ignorant, pro arab]. What a boring waste of time.

As for interpreting Zionism, you do understand that the term and the movement was created by the Jews, so their definition is probably the most accurate? No, it's much better to trust their haters to define them.

Or is it better to trust the haters of the haters. Nah I don't think so, I'm not going to trust ANYTHING that comes out of a country that has a history of proven discrimination, ignores all levels of international law and has it's citizens completely brainwashed into believing their dirty policies and agendas. Sorry :)

Unbelievable. Please, go back and read the entire thread, it's as if I'm debating with Q24 10 pages ago all over again. "Zionists persecute Palestinians blah blah blah". Gosh.

Sounds like a panic stricken diatribe response. Settle down mate before you cop a fit. You'll probably need to divert your....whatever that was, towards Wkeeper. I was just asking for clarity.

Wyv, you seem to fall into the same lingo as the anti-Israelis. Palestinians are not persecuted by Israel. The definition of persecution is:

"Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group. The most common forms are religious persecution, ethnic persecution, and political persecution, though there is naturally some overlap between these terms. The inflicting of suffering, harassment, isolation, imprisonment, fear, or pain are all factors that may establish persecution. Even so, not all suffering will necessarily establish persecution. The suffering experienced by the victim must be sufficiently severe. The threshold level of severity has been a source of much debate."

SOURCE

Defining the treatment of Palestinians by Israelis as persecution play into the hands of Q24 and his like, and establish a base for the untruthful deduction that Israel treats the Palestinians bad because of them being a religious or ethnic "other". This is obviously not the case, as Israeli Palestinians, which are of exact same ethnicity and religion as non-Israeli Palestinians, enjoy Israeli citizenship and human rights.

The sole reason Palestinians are in the situation they are right now is security-related, not a racist one.

:lol: Go ahead by your merry way and ignore what the rest of the world says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Q, I think by 'Zionism,' you refer to a particular perception of Zionism which is not actually close to the philosophy in question.

To me, Zionism at its foundation is the desire for a Jewish state with, as you said, Jewish self-determination. I agree that the view whereby Zionism necessarily consists of “right wing warhawk” policies and the other connotations mentioned is due to association (with the unfortunate actions we have seen), though are not a part of the original meaning.

I've been accused of playing the 'Holocaust card' here so we'll keep this light, but if you believe that it all comes down to the Jewish desire for a homeland.... Then you need to surely ask what inspired that desire.... The answer to that is a two thousand years of persecution in Europe, ultimately culminating in the Holocaust. Jews have always managed without a homeland, for millenia. Very few cultural groups manage to get by for so long without one... The early stirrings of Zionism made perfect sense given the events of the time. Look into the Dreyfus affair for example and you can see some of the building sentiment amongst the Jewish and non Jewish communities of the time.

So pin it all on the Jews desire for their own country if you choose, just know that is disingenuous and an obviously reductive attempt at ignoring the entire context of the situation.

Zionism was on the rise before the Holocaust - it appears the “six million” figure specifically, was fit to drive the policy. Still, I understand that the Jews have been unsuccessful in integrating with the local populations throughout history and this has led to tragedy.

And the solution for the Jews had to be to the detriment of Palestinians?

It seems to be just repeating the pattern on a grander scale. One of my fears is that the Jews’ past problems in Europe will pale in comparison to what they are unwittingly setting themselves up for in Israel when the power balance shifts one day.

Btw, Q.. Stop repeatedly asking the same question.. I've given you my answer. If you don't like it then go somewhere else, but don't keep asking in the hope I will say 'Oh how wrong I have been, Q24, you genius - you were right all along.'

Sorry, what are you talking about? I haven’t repeated a question to you.

This is what I have asked: -

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

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

Why was partition necessary?

Why was there tension?

So why maintain the same policies even today with hindsight?

And the solution for the Jews had to be to the detriment of Palestinians?

If you don’t like where the answers lead and/or cannot have a conversation without getting upset, where I might ask these very relevant questions, then the simple solution is not to get involved in the discussion. Incidentally, I think you have responded to them just fine, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wyvernkeeper

Zionism was on the rise before the Holocaust - it appears the “six million” figure specifically, was fit to drive the policy. Still, I understand that the Jews have been unsuccessful in integrating with the local populations throughout history and this has led to tragedy.

I have a real problem with this. Do you honestly think that the six million were just invoked to 'drive policy.' Do you not understand the general terror and psychological damage inflicted not on those who died in the gas chambers, but on those survivors who went on to establish Israel. I had entire pages of my family tree wiped out by the Nazis, but I don't invoke their memory in some manipulative attempt to promote Zionist philosophy, but because despite having never met any of those people - It is hard to contain the anger that this was allowed to happen to innocent people, just because of their heritage or situation. This is precisely why I support the Palestinian bid for statehood and self-determination.

You make it sound so cynical, as if the whole thing was just used as an excuse. I think to suggest this indicates a complete emotional detachment. Again, I will say that the Holocaust does not justify some later Israeli actions but you make it sound as if there was some kind of consistent Zionist policy to use any excuse possible to establish Israel. It is a tendency of both the anti-semite and Israel basher, (just to clarify, i'm not saying you are anti-semitic,) to conflate Israeli, Jew and Zionist and in doing so damn one for the actions of the other, or similarly suggest the actions of one were part of some grand coordinated action by the whole organism. This technique of distilling Jews into a single homogenous mass is as old as time, yet still is accepted as a legitimate understanding of Jewish motivation by those for whom it is an appealing way to view the world.

It was the other countries as much as Israel that were as keen to give the Jews their own land, it got rid of their own awkward Jewish populations! Hence the expulsion of Jews from some Arab countries circa Israeli independence and others later on.

_____________

Also, Jews have often been very successful integrating with local populations. It is such success that has led to the accusations that 'all Jews are rich,' or that 'Jews control the media.' Hitler's Nuremberg laws considered everyone with a single Jewish grandparent as fully Jewish and viable for transport to the camps, and this was down to the success of Jewish integration in Germany and his fear that if he was not entirely thorough, a few might 'slip through the net' as very often, the Jewish population was indistinguishable from the gentile population in lifestyle and appearance.

It's just that history demonstrates that as soon as something goes wrong, it's easier to blame the Jews than for the local ruling class/clergy/population to accept any responsibility... (funny how some things don't change.) The tendency to do this ran through Tsarist Russia, Nazi Germany, Earliest 20th century France and the rest of Europe.

Edited by Wyvernkeeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

I have a real problem with this. Do you honestly think that the six million were just invoked to 'drive policy.' Do you not understand the general terror and psychological damage inflicted not on those who died in the gas chambers, but on those survivors who went on to establish Israel.

Yes to both: -

  1. It appears the “six million” figure specifically, was invoked to drive the policy.
  2. I understand the extreme psychological effects the Holocaust had on the Jews.

Regarding the first, the “six million” had relevance to the Jews prior to the Holocaust and was mentioned numerous times in literature – it was alleged to be the number of lost Jews that would predicate a return to the promised land. Please see post here for details. Then we are told that happens to be the number who perished in the Holocaust. This presents three options: either the Jewish prophecy came true, there was a coincidence, or the figure was fit to the policy. Not believing in hocus pocus or such coincidence (and aware the actual figure has never been conclusively determined), I find the latter more likely.

Regarding the second, psychological issues do not make resultant crimes acceptable.

It's just that history demonstrates that as soon as something goes wrong, it's easier to blame the Jews than for the local ruling class/clergy/population to accept any responsibility...

Yes I agree, but still see the reason for this as a failure to integrate, i.e. the Jews became scapegoats because they were set apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wyvernkeeper

Yes to both: -

  1. It appears the “six million” figure specifically, was invoked to drive the policy.
  2. I understand the extreme psychological effects the Holocaust had on the Jews.

Regarding the first, the “six million” had relevance to the Jews prior to the Holocaust and was mentioned numerous times in literature – it was alleged to be the number of lost Jews that would predicate a return to the promised land. Please see post here for details. Then we are told that happens to be the number who perished in the Holocaust. This presents three options: either the Jewish prophecy came true, there was a coincidence, or the figure was fit to the policy. Not believing in hocus pocus or such coincidence (and aware the actual figure has never been conclusively determined), I find the latter more likely.

Regarding the second, psychological issues do not make resultant crimes acceptable.

Yes I agree, but still see the reason for this as a failure to integrate, i.e. the Jews became scapegoats because they were set apart.

Could you provide a more direct link to your six million theory. I don't want to wade through a whole thread.

And you have missed my point, go and look at the history of the the Jewish Reform movement in pre war Germany. You will see that despite a hugely secular Jewish population and high levels of assimilation into German society, Jews were still scapegoated. They were the enemy within. This is why I highlighted Hitlers efforts to define who was and wasn't a Jew.

Also you have missed the part where I also said that events in the past do not justify future crimes, as you have agreed. However, what they do is explain the context, which is useful.

Anyway.. It's 5pm, I'm going home from work - but please Q... i don't feel you actually read what is written. It seems like you gloss over responses without paying them much heed. You keep missing points that I make, either that or you are ignoring them (intentionally or instinctively I do not know.)

Have a nice evening people.

Edited by Wyvernkeeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Could you provide a more direct link to your six million theory. I don't want to wade through a whole thread.

The link is direct to my post #74 in the thread (at least it is on my screen – though I’ve known links play up before). The relevant section of that post is my response to Moon Monkey’s fifth quote box.

And you have missed my point, go and look at the history of the the Jewish Reform movement in pre war Germany. You will see that despite a hugely secular Jewish population and high levels of assimilation into German society, Jews were still scapegoated. They were the enemy within. This is why I highlighted Hitlers efforts to define who was and wasn't a Jew.

Also you have missed the part where I also said that events in the past do not justify future crimes, as you have agreed. However, what they do is explain the context, which is useful.

Anyway.. It's 5pm, I'm going home from work - but please Q... i don't feel you actually read what is written. It seems like you gloss over responses without paying them much heed. You keep missing points that I make, either that or you are ignoring them (intentionally or instinctively I do not know.)

Sorry, I don’t mean to give that impression, it just means I don’t have anything further to add to a point. What can I say to the above? The Jewish reform movement was intended to deter full integration into German society by making Judaism more appealing to those who would otherwise be assimilated. It was designed to secure a Jewish character – the very thing which set them apart allowing the whole population to be scapegoated. I should add, I do not believe it is for the simple fact of race or religion alone which triggered Hitler’s unjustified action. Anyhow, I’m not sure why we are talking about this, we agree the episode was wrong and absolutely tragic for the Jewish people…

It is the other point we agree on which is relevant to the Palestinian situation - events in the past (and a different place) do not justify future crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl
As you mention, in some 260 years (prior to the 1920s) there had only been two large scale incidents of extreme violence against the Jews back in the 1830s. And from this, you come to the conclusion, “Arabs were attacking Jews whenever they had the chance”. Never mind the roughly 259 years and 11 months of general peace that existed with Arabs and Jews living side by side. In any case, I was actually referring to the new round of tensions that began in the 1920s…

Did I say lack of deduction skills? no? so here we go - you lack any deduction, and now reading, skills whatsoever, I'm sorry to say.

Or you just read what you want to read. I know english isn't my native tongue, but I think I manage with it pretty good.

I said: "Because Arabs were attacking Jews whenever they had the chance, aka - whenever there was chaos in the land. They did it in the 1830s in two massacres in the city Safed, when the region was in chaos and the regime was weak. Then since that time all the way till the end of the Ottoman period, in 1920, there was no clash or riot."

The reasons Muslims usually didn't attack Jews is that the regime in Istanbul enforced order and discipline. When did that change? In the short decade when the land was a war zone between the Ottoman Empire and Egypt, from 1831-1841. In that short time, They manage to conduct two massacres!

Btw, going by your logic of peace and harmony until the evil Zionists arrived, how come, from 1880, with the first wave of Zionist immigrants, up until 1920, there was no riot, no massacre, against the Jews? actually it contradicts your entire theory - Zionists began immigrating in 1880, until 1947 when the British Mandate has ended - 67 years have passed. Out of this period, for 40 years - I repeat - 40 years (!) the Arabs sat quietly and didn't attack the Jews, actually enjoyed the new economic boom that happened in the region. There were good relations between the Zionists and the Arabs at that time.

Then, suddenly, after 1920, with a coincidence of the demise of the Ottoman Empire, a wave of nationalism among Arabs - suddenly the Arabs woke up! wow!

Wait wait wait… you begin by contradicting yourself. Was it land that everyone living there had “equal” rights to or was it a “no-man’s land”?

Again, you seem to have logical problem of deduction.

Equal rights - meaning that both sides of the conflict have equal claim to the land.

No-man's land means that legally, there was no political entity in the region, besides Turkey that gave it all up, that can actually claim the land. What's wrong with the sentence "there was no Palestinians country/state in the region, it was part of a sequence of empires ruling the region, none of them except for the Crusaders made Jerusalem their capital". Gosh. I'm getting tired repeating myself. It's not so difficult.

There were people living here. They, after 1920, started to evolve into what you call today Palestinians. They have a claim to the land. Among these people there were also native Jews, who joined a wave of Jewish immigration from elsewhere, and also has an equal claim to the land. Simple as that.

Yes that is the view based on the previous established facts, neither of which you refuted through any logical following (see above).

Which facts? your own opinions?

Further than that, whether Zionists intended to remove the native people or whether it was a by-product of the situation, the fact is that this did occur. It is the end result of the tensions caused by a Zionist desire for a Jewish state.

You see the logic behind it - Jews had no choice but to cause the situation, according to you. Simply by being there. The Palestinians have no responsibility what so ever for their actions. Racism of low expectations, did I mention?

And I think you got it straight – a 3,208 year old claim does not justify a new Jewish state in modern times.

Again we having reading difficulties? "people that already lived there (as a minority), have roots in the land going back 3208 years,"

There were Jews in the region. There have always been a Jewish community in region, since the Jewish people existed as a recorded people.

Can you explain how a Jewish state with an Arab majority would have worked?

This is your problem of reading again, as I've explained on several occasions that none of the early Zionists actually expected to have a country, let alone a Jewish-majority country, until fairly late down the road and it was obvious that division of the land is the only solution to stop the violence.

Many Zionist leaders, before 1920, saw the local Arabs as remnants of the Jews who were forced to convert to Christianity and then Islam. They thought about reconciliation.

As I've shown above, even the leader of right wing Zionism, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, spoke of equal rights, and didn't even object to the possibility of an Arab president.

{Scratches being called a racist and antisemitic from the list, still awaiting to be called biased, ignorant, pro arab]. What a boring waste of time.

Do you even know how to read? That's ridiculous... I said: "So you openly whitewash Hamas? What kind of tone down, exactly? it's still hold onto it's antisemitic covenant. Another racist of low expectations here, guys".

If you actually read the thread, you would know what the latter means, while the former was labelling Hamas' covenant as anti-Semitic, which it is.

You are so obsessed to dismiss everything that goes against your brainwashed mind as Zionist propaganda that you don't even stop reading. As I said, go back, drink a sip of water, calm down, and read the thread.

As for the 6 million Jews allegations that you started to spread here - really guys, Holocaust denial now? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelW

The OP has expressed his opinion on "who are the palestinians". My simple opinion is they're a population subject to discrimination, first and foremost by the State of Israel and secondly, as refugees, by other arab nations. The simple fact that Israel has increased the amount of settlers during the last decade (approx 100,000 with an overall total of 600,000 in over 110 settlements) in the West Bank, shows they have a clear agenda to occupy as much land as possible and in the process of doing so, denigrating completely the peace process, world opinion, International Law, and Human Rights reports.

All this under the umbrella of Uncle Sam. It'll be a tragic day for Israel if this "support" ever evaporates.

No, no, no. This is not correct. The Arabs have never done anything discriminatory against the Palestinians. It is all Israel's fault because they are racist Nazis.

Of course, this was sarcasm to suit the worldview of several particular members here. I'll leave you to guess which ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Which facts?

These facts: -

Why was partition necessary?

Because of the tensions between Arabs and Jews.

Why was there tension?

Because Zionists wanted a Jewish state.

Therefore the answer is: The partition was necessary because Zionists wanted a Jewish state.

None of which you have come close to refuting.

The first question above, you might not realize but we generally agree on.

It is the second question on which we really disagree and I refer to from here…

I will point out that the 1830s followed by eighty years of peace had no bearing on the new round of tensions beginning in the 1920s. That is just a tangent you have gone off on which is clouding the issue. You also talk about Jews having “equal” rights to claim the land as their own – which to me is a contradiction but never mind, it does not address the question either. Aside from that, I’m finding it very difficult to understand what your argument against that second point actually is.

You appear to be saying - tensions were not because Zionists wanted a Jewish state, but because Ottoman rule had ended and the Arabs thought, “Allah Akbar! Eighty years we have waited! Now is our chance to bash some Jews!” Is that basically why you think there was a new round of tension in the 1920s?

This is your problem of reading again, as I've explained on several occasions that none of the early Zionists actually expected to have a country, let alone a Jewish-majority country, until fairly late down the road and it was obvious that division of the land is the only solution to stop the violence.

Many Zionist leaders, before 1920, saw the local Arabs as remnants of the Jews who were forced to convert to Christianity and then Islam. They thought about reconciliation.

As I've shown above, even the leader of right wing Zionism, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, spoke of equal rights, and didn't even object to the possibility of an Arab president.

This is your answer to, “Can you explain how a Jewish state with an Arab majority would have worked?” I can barely understand what you are saying it’s so contrary to everything I know. You appear to be trying to tell me that early Zionism never intended for a Jewish state? I mean, eh…? You heard of that guy Theodor Herzl, right? And that self-determination was not an aim? At least, I can’t fathom how there can be true Jewish self-determination under an Arab president.

This cannot be what you are saying. Someone, Wyvern, anyone! Please translate what Erikl is trying to say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 19 January 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

The OP has expressed his opinion on "who are the palestinians". My simple opinion is they're a population subject to discrimination, first and foremost by the State of Israel and secondly, as refugees, by other arab nations. The simple fact that Israel has increased the amount of settlers during the last decade (approx 100,000 with an overall total of 600,000 in over 110 settlements) in the West Bank, shows they have a clear agenda to occupy as much land as possible and in the process of doing so, denigrating completely the peace process, world opinion, International Law, and Human Rights reports.

All this under the umbrella of Uncle Sam. It'll be a tragic day for Israel if this "support" ever evaporates.

They have a clear agenda to develop as much of their land as they possibly can. And if the US ever stops supporting Israel it will be a far greater tragedy for the US and for Israel's neighbors than for Israel. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

Do you even know how to read? That's ridiculous... I said: "So you openly whitewash Hamas? What kind of tone down, exactly? it's still hold onto it's antisemitic covenant. Another racist of low expectations here, guys".

If you actually read the thread, you would know what the latter means, while the former was labelling Hamas' covenant as anti-Semitic, which it is.

You are so obsessed to dismiss everything that goes against your brainwashed mind as Zionist propaganda that you don't even stop reading. As I said, go back, drink a sip of water, calm down, and read the thread.

As for the 6 million Jews allegations that you started to spread here - really guys, Holocaust denial now? :rolleyes:

Mate, your outbursts are getting funnier as you go along. What do we have here? Another attack suggesting I don't know how to read [scratches off being called ignorant from the list, 3 down 2 to go :tu:].

Lets see if you can rationalise this without going into a fit. By suggesting that Hamas has toned down, doesn't mean I've whitewashed anything, and you, by making the notation that they're still holding onto their antisemitic covenant and by alluding that I'm supportive of them, you've basically declared me to be antisemitic. Just another way of twisting things around to portray yourself as the victim and believe everyone is dumb enough to fall for it.

Then you go and broadcast an announcement to all your followers and patsy's that you have another racist of low expectations (which is just a subtle way to call someone a racist without officially calling them a racist). So here you go with your twist of words again.

Then we have a couple of final clinchers, I'm accused of being brainwashed (which was just a childish response to my previous suggestion) and, here ye here ye, I'm accused of being in denial of the Holocaust...........:lol:

I know you probably won't listen but anyway here it goes, try reading something other than the Jewish Virtual Library my friend. You might find out that the world isn't inhabited by antisemitic monsters all plotting against Israel. The reason the world has a problem with Isreal, whether you and your kin like it or not, is because they're discriminating against a race of people under their occupation and then they're deceitfully trying to palm the blame onto the victims.

Absolutely disgusting hypocrisy by such a Govt who, despite protests from major Agencies around the world, keeps on hacking away regardless, with their agenda.

You want to be supportive of such a Govt? That's your prerogative, convenience and duty. But don't come here expecting everyone else to gobble up your BS like naive little suckers and feel intimidated in expressing their opinions because you have them believing they could be perceived as racists and antisemitic.

Also, another thing. You can save your 3208 years of jewish history in the land of Nod or wherever. What I've put forward and you've challenged is the current situation, not what happened back then.

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

No, no, no. This is not correct. The Arabs have never done anything discriminatory against the Palestinians. It is all Israel's fault because they are racist Nazis.

Of course, this was sarcasm to suit the worldview of several particular members here. I'll leave you to guess which ones.

Don't go believing Erikl's pantomime. I look at the situation at 360 degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelW

Don't go believing Erikl's pantomime. I look at the situation at 360 degrees.

No, the pantomimes I don't believe in is people justifying terrorism to suit their particular world view. On both sides. Sure, the Palestinians are discriminated against by Israel. But that's all people see. They don't see discrimination against Palestinians being perpetrated by the nations who are fighting Israel to "protect" them.

However, I am inclined to believe Erikl a lot more because the opposition always seem to go "No you're worng because you're Israeli". I'm inclined to believe him more because he doesn't believe that he is morally superior to other posters and has put forward very compelling arguments. Same can't be said for those who bat for the Palestinians. "Well, you're a racist Nazi" is the response I usually get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 19 January 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

They have a clear agenda to develop as much of their land as they possibly can. And if the US ever stops supporting Israel it will be a far greater tragedy for the US and for Israel's neighbors than for Israel. :yes:

Interesting. How do you come to that conclusion? I'm of the opinion that without total US and EU support and by removing their nukes, Israel as we know it would get wiped off the map of this earth (and before I get blamed for it, this is something I would never hope happened). They currently do have superior military power in the region, mainly thanks to the support from US military aid in the last 40 years which has allowed them to purchase and build superior weapons of technology.

What would happen if this aid and support stopped? Currently petrodollars runs the world and probably will for who knows how long. I highly doubt that Europe and the US will ever abandon Israel (unless they're forced to) but they sure don't need Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Mate, your outbursts are getting funnier as you go along. What do we have here? Another attack suggesting I don't know how to read [scratches off being called ignorant from the list, 3 down 2 to go :tu:].

You want to be supportive of such a Govt? That's your prerogative, convenience and duty. But don't come here expecting everyone else to gobble up your BS like naive little suckers and feel intimidated in expressing their opinions because you have them believing they could be perceived as racists and antisemitic.

Also, another thing. You can save your 3208 years of jewish history in the land of Nod or wherever. What I've put forward and you've challenged is the current situation, not what happened back then.

And that current situation needs to be addressed. The next time the armed freedom fighters attack Israel from all points of the compass Israel should use no restraint in dealing with them. They should leave the lights and water off in every country that attacks them. They should worry less about hasbara and more about their own soldiers. In this conflict there are NO innocent civilians. The UN will scream and moan but in the end the world's governments are gutless to take up arms against Israel. WHY? Because the risk of dying outweighs the value of the poison rhetoric they preach. The Arabs in the region have been lauded for their "spring" where they lost their fear and became emboldened. Imagine how the region will fare when Israel loses their fear of public opinion which is universally against them anyway? Now THAT will be a glorious season indeed. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

And that current situation needs to be addressed. The next time the armed freedom fighters attack Israel from all points of the compass Israel should use no restraint in dealing with them. They should leave the lights and water off in every country that attacks them. They should worry less about hasbara and more about their own soldiers. In this conflict there are NO innocent civilians. The UN will scream and moan but in the end the world's governments are gutless to take up arms against Israel. WHY? Because the risk of dying outweighs the value of the poison rhetoric they preach. The Arabs in the region have been lauded for their "spring" where they lost their fear and became emboldened. Imagine how the region will fare when Israel loses their fear of public opinion which is universally against them anyway? Now THAT will be a glorious season indeed. :tu:

Warmongering and biased propaganda that leads nowhere. You could have saved yourself this embarrassing post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

No, the pantomimes I don't believe in is people justifying terrorism to suit their particular world view. On both sides. Sure, the Palestinians are discriminated against by Israel. But that's all people see. They don't see discrimination against Palestinians being perpetrated by the nations who are fighting Israel to "protect" them.

However, I am inclined to believe Erikl a lot more because the opposition always seem to go "No you're worng because you're Israeli". I'm inclined to believe him more because he doesn't believe that he is morally superior to other posters and has put forward very compelling arguments. Same can't be said for those who bat for the Palestinians. "Well, you're a racist Nazi" is the response I usually get.

What compelling arguments? All he does is bring out stuff from thousands of years ago and then puts on a show by totally ignoring the current mistreatment of Palestinians and the double standards occurring under his Govt occupation and then goes and calls the world racists and antisemitic because they point this out.

Israel is quickly loosing credibility with it's close allies, Europe, and even Obama has shown signs of impatience with Israeli stubbornness in pursuing and building settlements in the West Bank. Turkey was the only muslim nation they truly had as an ally and they've managed to get them offside as well now. Human Rights Groups are rife with reports about the mistreatment of Palestinians, the UN as well.

I mean, can the world be THAT wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

What compelling arguments? All he does is bring out stuff from thousands of years ago and then puts on a show by totally ignoring the current mistreatment of Palestinians and the double standards occurring under his Govt occupation and then goes and calls the world racists and antisemitic because they point this out.

Israel is quickly loosing credibility with it's close allies, Europe, and even Obama has shown signs of impatience with Israeli stubbornness in pursuing and building settlements in the West Bank. Turkey was the only muslim nation they truly had as an ally and they've managed to get them offside as well now. Human Rights Groups are rife with reports about the mistreatment of Palestinians, the UN as well.

I mean, can the world be THAT wrong?

Apparently so. Or possibly that cowardly. Either way, Israel will continue to possess the land. But for my part, if anything DOES flare up I hope your family is kept far from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

[/b][/i]

Apparently so. Or possibly that cowardly. Either way, Israel will continue to possess the land. But for my part, if anything DOES flare up I hope your family is kept far from it.

I'm sure if something does flare up you'll save us all by putting into practice some of the heroic powerful actions you seem to be expressing behind a computer monitor.

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight Of Shadows

lol child guys it's only a discussion :lol:

well to get it back on topic i'll post some of palestinians history

history erased by ha'aretz palestine remembered :wub:

In July 1950, Majdal - today Ashkelon - was still a mixed town. About 3,000 Palestinians lived there in a closed, fenced-off ghetto, next to the recently arrived Jewish residents. Before the 1948 war, Majdal had been a commercial and administrative center with a population of 12,000. It also had religious importance: nearby, amid the ruins of ancient Ashkelon, stood Mash'had Nabi Hussein, an 11th-century structure where, according to tradition, the head of Hussein Bin Ali, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, was interred; his death in Karbala, Iraq, marked the onset of the rift between Shi'ites and Sunnis. Muslim pilgrims, both Shi'ite and Sunni, would visit the site. But after July 1950, there was nothing left for them to visit: that's when the Israel Defense Forces blew up Mash'had Nabi Hussein.

read full article here Link Here

with pics of old beloved palestine and alot of useful information about palestine history

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight Of Shadows

palestine history from B.C to This certain day with all the details and events

Link Here

happy reading :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelW

What compelling arguments? All he does is bring out stuff from thousands of years ago and then puts on a show by totally ignoring the current mistreatment of Palestinians and the double standards occurring under his Govt occupation and then goes and calls the world racists and antisemitic because they point this out.

And the people who bat for the Palestinians are going on about stuff that happened before and just after Israel was created, which was at least sixty years ago. So, people bringing up remotely relevant stuff from the past isn't unique to those who bat for the Israelis. I point out double standards in people's arguments and I get called a Nazi, so go figure.

Plus, Knight's just posted a link on the "history" of Palestine. So that kinda makes your point moot.

Israel is quickly loosing credibility with it's close allies, Europe, and even Obama has shown signs of impatience with Israeli stubbornness in pursuing and building settlements in the West Bank. Turkey was the only muslim nation they truly had as an ally and they've managed to get them offside as well now. Human Rights Groups are rife with reports about the mistreatment of Palestinians, the UN as well.

I mean, can the world be THAT wrong?

Probably because the Turks built illegal settlements as well. But of course, that is irrelevant.

But the thing is, everyone gets worked up about the living conditions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and yet when a report comes out that they are just as badly treated in ghettos in Lebanon, no one says anything. Because no one cares unless it's about Israel (which gives a cassus belli to ignore or justify numerous human rights abuses and terrorist acts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl
Mate, your outbursts are getting funnier as you go along. What do we have here? Another attack suggesting I don't know how to read [scratches off being called ignorant from the list, 3 down 2 to go

Outbursts? Not at all. It's just very tyring to repeat your own words every one or two days on the same thread just because none of you lots care to read anything. Q24 didn't even read the posts written to him, yet simply replied. I am very calmed, unfortunately for you. It is you who's coming here blaming everyone, automatically blaming me for calling you a racist or antisemitic (which I haven't, as proved by my quotes).

You think you represent reason, yet none of you LittleDevil, Q24, Yamato etc. conducting in a reasonable matter. None of you addressed any of the facts I've presented here, the maps - all of which stem from neutral sources like wikipedia, or even Palestinian sources. Q24, for example, talked about Benny Morris, yet when I quote him in a manner that doesn't fit his world view - it's ignored. Your deduction skills have no grip with reality - you interpret reality as it suits you. Yamato, finally, admitted that he simply hates Israel, and went racist. Q24 haven't, which is why he's still here. However, he's totally misinformed, he's own agenda blind him from ever accepting anything he was indoctrinate into.

and, here ye here ye, I'm accused of being in denial of the Holocaust...........

Do you suffer from paranoia? I guess so. It's either that, or you simply have no reading capability (or you deliberately try to twist my words, to suits your agenda). I didn't blame you, just as I didn't call you anti-Semitic (I was obviously referring to the Hamas covenant) or racist in terms you think (if you cared to read the thread, and not just storm in with pro-Palestinian propaganda, then you would have known what the term racist of low expectations mean). Claiming that the number "6 million was chosen" to suit Zionist means, as was raised in the previous page, borders Holocaust denial.

Anyhow, BlackLittleDevil, it seems that if you keep on conducting the way you do, simply spreading here single liners with baseless accusations on your rampage to bash Israel, the thread will get closed. So, for the fourth time now, I really suggest you calm down, sip a cup of tea or something, sit back and relax, and read the entire thread. Then come back and put your educated 5 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.