"A balanced presentation is NOT possible"

[Humanity]

Concerning the right of return, as long as the Palestinians are acting to openly destroy the state of Israel, that thing canno be discussed.

You know what, though? Sure, let's discuss this funny thing.

When you say "Palestinian right of return," what exactly are you saying?

Because remind you, the nations worlwide are so enthusiastic about "Palestinian state" they want to create, most of them say, in the 67' borders, right? So, let's say this happens. They expel 400,000 Jews out of their home in Judeah and Samaria, and declare East Jerusalem ans Judeah And Samaria the new 'Palestine'.

Cool? Cool.

But hey, that's not what they say! They say, "but wait a minute! my home was in Jaffa, in Sheikh Monis! that's where I want my right of return to be!".... so what happens, we let the Palestinians into their "homes" inside the borders, in Tel Aviv, Jaffa, Haifa etc.

So what right of return? If there is a Palestine in Gaza, Palestine in the West Bank, but wait, now we let them into Tel Aviv, lets make it all one big "PALESTINE", so what gives? where is Israel?

It creates 3 Palestine and 0 state for the Jews. So again, which "right of return" are you speaking of, and, accepting that, how can you ensure the safety of the Jews?

To deal with the first thing Lipush... Obviously you didn't find my "multiple posts" of this video did you... Because there aren't any!

Second, don't put words into my mouth... I did not say "Palestinian right of return"... That matter does indeed require a lot of thought and consideration on BOTH sides!

The rest of your post is full of the same 'excuses' and 'smoke screens' that is thrown up time and again. If you have watched the video then you know I don't need to repeat them here and in the usual manner, it seems that Israel is the only party who has ANY rights in this issue...

If you watched the video you would find it incredibly difficult to argue the "right or return" and the creation of the state of Israel.

So, it's ok to expel Palestinians from their land, their homes?

I see on this forum many comments comparing Israel to South Africa... I find it difficult not to disagree with many, however, there are some that I cannot consider correct.

However, the "positive discrimination" that has been taking place in South Africa over these past years could easily come to Israel and there would be hell to pay!

You didn't discuss the "Palestinian right of return" but in fact you did. The rest of my post is not only NOT boring, but purely cut to the chase, it means accepting a Palestine under their condition means the destruction of my state. and THAT is a no-no. So I ask, what right of return do you mean?

The Palestinian houses in Hebron, Judea and Samaria, great part of them were stolen property from the Jews, so when the Jews "expeled" the Palestinian (which is inaccurate, many of them escaped under the instructions of Arab states, but leave that for another argument), they "expeled" them from many places they never belonged, because those were taken from the Jews between 1920 and 1936.

The South Africa comparison is bullshit. South Africa discriminated people based on skin-color. The separation of two communities here is based on citizenship and security. Security and life is worth more than anything.

Complaining about security motives is like saying that when you forbid abusing men from entering women-shelters is discrimination. Total nonsense.

Lipush = confused.com

You are right, I didn't discuss the "Palestinian right of return" but I did? How in 'your world' does that work then?

Did you forget to take your medication today?

Can you explain when the expulsion of one over another is ever justified?

Discrimination is ALWAYS wrong, however you wish to dress it... And the "security" dressing is utter bullshit and just ANOTHER smokescreen dished out by the pro Israel team....

If you want to go down the "citizenship" road, well, you are going to lose your way...

 

[Humanity]

There was no "Palestine" to erease in previously to 1967. There was no Palestine at all, Palestine was never a state. It was a territory ruled by the british occupier. When you say "Palestine" you mean the same territorial strip that the Philisitines took over, in their exile from Europe, and named it after themselves in an attempt to mock the original native people of that land. Arab clans arriving there adopted the identity of "Palestinians", but that was far from the case.

People say "Palestinians" refering the Arabs who were "ethnic cleansed". That's inaccurate. My grandmother's ID says "Palestinian" and she was a Jew. By all standards, I AM a palestinian myself. There are thousands of Israelis who are infact "palestinians" by definition, but since there was no accurate Palestinian "identity" since Palestinians of that time were Arabs, Jews, Christians, and all other ethnic groups, the definition of a "Palestinian" nowdays is a total hoax.

No well, I think that this bleating statement of "no Palestine" is actually quite boring and another of the Israeli smoke screens...

And you clearly reinforce my comment by your grandmothers ID saying "Palestinian"...

I think that pro Israel supporters need to try and find another drum to beat because the "no Palestine" excuses are dead in the water!

No, in fact, I made my own point. The Palestine they talk about now is a Muslim Arab Palestine.

Chances are, you'll discover bigfoot before finding such Palestine ever existed.

Because it handn't. EVER.

No, in fact, your point is flawed...

And the Palestine that ISRAEL talks about is a Muslim/Arab Palestine....

What the Palestinian Arabs talk about is a unified Palestine....

You and your like need to have a think about the difference between culture and religion..

If you can drag yourself away from the brainwashing BS you will clearly see that there is a HUGE difference!

In the same way that there is a HUGE difference between being Jewish and being Zionist!

 

[Humanity]

...What is called "Israel" and what is meant by "Israel" depends on the time frame in which it is applied...

True.

And, at present, it's "Israel".

With little prospect in sight, of that changing in the foreseeable future.

All hyperbole from the under-performing lost-cause Palestinians notwithstanding.

Nice post....

You are right, there is little prospect in sight of the stolen lands being handed back to the indigenous Christian/Jewish/Muslim Arabs...

Can you see the shame?

 

[teddyearp]

So would you object to all these "returnees" if they all agreed to become Israeli citizens?

If they wanted to live in peace with their neighbors, it should be possible. But I do not live there.

 

[teddyearp]

And the Palestine that ISRAEL talks about is a Muslim/Arab Palestine....

What the Palestinian Arabs talk about is a unified Palestine....

And I thought we had met in the middle, or am I reading something incorrectly here? The Palestine that Israel talks about is a Muslim/Arab Palestine, however, IIRC, the 'unified Palestine' that the Palestinian Arabs talk about does not include the Jews at all? Please correct me if I'm wrong in my assessment of your post.

 

[teddyearp]

Thank you Humanity for the video. I did watch the whole thing. And though the holes I may poke in some of the speakers points does nothing for the current conflict, for me it does influence my acceptance of the points raised by him. I am not as eloquent as to point out the exact time stamp, nor as eloquent as RoccoR, but I do have some serious issues with what the speaker said. And a lot about what he didn't say.

First. He 'points out' that none of the Jews in Israel today are descendants of the ancient Jews, yet later he talks about an Iraqi/Arab/Jew crying over Baghdad being bombed. Last time I checked, the Jewish community in Iraq was started in Persia over 2500 years ago. He infers that they are only the "European Jews". Illogical.

Next, he starts the conflict with the 1947 partition plan. Well I must say it started a few years before that. Albeit it was still in the 20th century. Why doesn't he mention Hebron in 1929?

So let's go with his talk about 1947. He claims that there was a genocide from Nov 1967 for another year into 1968. Claims that the Arabs were 'kicked out'. That still remains to be seen and/or proved.

The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war. It broke out after the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution on 29 November 1947 recommending the adoption of the Partition Plan for Palestine.[4] When the British Mandate of Palestine expired on 14 May 1948, and with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the surrounding Arab states, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria invaded what had just ceased to be Mandatory Palestine,[5] and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements.[6] The conflict then turned into the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

During the civil war, the Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine clashed (the latter supported by the Arab Liberation Army) while the British, who had the obligation to maintain order,[7][8] organized their withdrawal and intervened only on an occasional basis.

More here: 1947 48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Kind of shoots the one year thing in the foot as as far as I know. November to May is only six months.

Then he talks about his mother who was born and raised in Jerusalem. How she used to visit these wonderful homes built in Jerusalem outside the old city walls. How they were all built by Palestinians. Well, maybe his mother didn't visit enough of Jerusalem, she really needed to get out more. Because anyone who visits Jerusalem can tell you that is false.

By the 1860s, the city, with an area of only one square kilometer, was already overcrowded. Thus began the construction of the New City, the part of Jerusalem outside of the city walls. Seeking new areas to stake their claims, the Russian Orthodox Church began constructing a complex, now known as the Russian Compound, a few hundred meters from Jaffa Gate. The first attempt at residential settlement outside the walls of Jerusalem was undertaken by Jews, who built a small complex on the hill overlooking Zion Gate, across the Valley of Hinnom. This settlement, known as Mishkenot Sha'ananim, eventually flourished and set the precedent for other new communities to spring up to the west and north of the Old City. In time, as the communities grew and connected geographically, this became known as the New City.

In 1882, around 150 Jewish families arrived in Jerusalem from Yemen. Initially they were not accepted by the Jews of Jerusalem and lived in destitute conditions supported by the Christians of the Swedish-American colony, who called them Gadites.[44] In 1884, the Yemenites moved into Silwan.

Link: History of Jerusalem - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now let me move on to what he said about the 1967 war. Sure "the Generals" may have been trigger happy against Egypt, they claimed it would take (according to the speaker) Egypt 1+ years to go to war. However, when he makes the statement that "the generals" just wanted to take over the Golan Heights and the west bank; that is totally wrong. Syria and Jordan attacked first.

Here is Jordan's part at least:

One of the Jordanian brigades stationed in the West Bank was sent to the Hebron area in order to link with the Egyptians. Hussein decided to attack.
The IDF's strategic plan was to remain on the defensive along the Jordanian front, to enable focus in the expected campaign against Egypt.

Intermittent machine-gun exchanges began taking place in Jerusalem at 9:30 am, and the fighting gradually escalated as the Jordanians introduced mortar and recoilless rifle fire. Under the orders from General Narkis, the Israelis responded only with small-arms fire, firing in a flat trajectory to avoid hitting civilians, holy sites or the Old City. At 10:00 am on June 5, the Jordanian Army began shelling Israel. Two batteries of 155mm Long Tom cannons opened fire on the suburbs of Tel Aviv and Ramat David Airbase. The commanders of these batteries were instructed to lay a two-hour barrage against military and civilian settlements in central Israel. Some shells hit the outskirts of Tel Aviv.[80]

Israel assumed that the attacks were a symbolic gesture of solidarity with Egypt, and sent a message to King Hussein promising not to initiate any action against Jordan if it stayed out of the war. King Hussein replied that it was too late, "the die was cast".[81] At 11:15 am, Jordanian howitzers began a 6,000-shell barrage at Israeli Jerusalem. The Jordanians initially targeted kibbutz Ramat Rachel in the south and Mount Scopus in the north, then ranged into the city center and outlying neighborhoods. Military installations, the Prime Minister's Residence, and the Knesset compound were also targeted. Israeli civilian casualties totalled 20 dead and about 1,000 wounded. Some 900 buildings were damaged, including Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital.[15]

Link: Six-Day War - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then we go on. After the 1967 war, it could be said that Israel did just say screw the Palestinians. IMHO, perhaps so. The speaker mentions that after the 1967 war his father tried to get a two state peace solution from 1973 to 1993. And there is a big gap in his narrative from 1967 to about 1997. And he makes no mention of the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Why no mention? He talks about his niece being killed by terrorists in 1997, and his sister's response to it; blaming Israel. Perhaps so. I do not know. He then goes on to talk about his meeting and talking to Palestinians in San Diego around 1997 and how he listened to their plight. I have to wonder about that. I have tried to listen to the Palestinians' plight myself, but when I wake up, I see that they seem to claim that they never did anything wrong whatsoever.

Now let's go to the "Most shameful war the Jews have done to Gaza" that according to the speaker started on September 27, 2008 at 11:25AM. Well, if I wanted to make such a point, I would surely get the date right. I found a date of December 27, 2008 and as some of us see, there is quite the back story; not mentioned at all by the speaker.

Link: Gaza War 2008 09 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

OK, to finalize. The speaker mentions how the Palestinians have been given racist treatment at Ben Gurion Airport for over forty years. Maybe he forgot about Munich 1973. Among other things. And to mention and equate Israel to apartheid? EPIC FAIL!

 

[Challenger]

Thank you Humanity for the video. I did watch the whole thing. And though the holes I may poke in some of the speakers points does nothing for the current conflict, for me it does influence my acceptance of the points raised by him. I am not as eloquent as to point out the exact time stamp, nor as eloquent as RoccoR, but I do have some serious issues with what the speaker said. And a lot about what he didn't say...

I also watched the whole video and have to agree with teddyearp that there were factual inaccuracies and omissions in his presentation, but then again the presenter is not an academic historian and any historical inaccuracies should not detract from what is, after all, a personal journey by Miko Peled to uncover the truth as he sees it. As part of the Zionist elite, he had access to more "insider information" than any of us will ever have, especially regarding motivations and intentions of the key players. Compared to that, minor errors in times, dates, etc are trivial concerns. His message of a fully inclusive, democratic, united Israel/Palestine resonates with me and millions of others. As he says, if Switzerland, Belgium, South Africa, Canada, the U.K. and even the U.S.A. can exist as multi-ethnic, multi-religious states, why not Israel/Palestine?

 

[Phoenall]

Concerning the right of return, as long as the Palestinians are acting to openly destroy the state of Israel, that thing canno be discussed.

You know what, though? Sure, let's discuss this funny thing.

When you say "Palestinian right of return," what exactly are you saying?

Because remind you, the nations worlwide are so enthusiastic about "Palestinian state" they want to create, most of them say, in the 67' borders, right? So, let's say this happens. They expel 400,000 Jews out of their home in Judeah and Samaria, and declare East Jerusalem ans Judeah And Samaria the new 'Palestine'.

Cool? Cool.

But hey, that's not what they say! They say, "but wait a minute! my home was in Jaffa, in Sheikh Monis! that's where I want my right of return to be!".... so what happens, we let the Palestinians into their "homes" inside the borders, in Tel Aviv, Jaffa, Haifa etc.

So what right of return? If there is a Palestine in Gaza, Palestine in the West Bank, but wait, now we let them into Tel Aviv, lets make it all one big "PALESTINE", so what gives? where is Israel?

It creates 3 Palestine and 0 state for the Jews. So again, which "right of return" are you speaking of, and, accepting that, how can you ensure the safety of the Jews?

So would you object to all these "returnees" if they all agreed to become Israeli citizens?

More to it than that they would also have to agree to the terms on the UN resolutions that call for a right of return and demands they accept an instant cessation of all forms of violence and belligerence and promise to live in peace or face losing their right of return. Up to now not one Palestinian asked has accepted the UN rules.

 

[docmauser1]

So would you object to all these "returnees" if they all agreed to become Israeli citizens?

Of course, they'd agree to become israeli citizens - prospects of bilking israeli social security is a powerful motivator! hehe
Ah, and bth., with the existence of the state of palistan they got their "return" to it.

 

[Lipush]

There was no "Palestine" to erease in previously to 1967. There was no Palestine at all, Palestine was never a state. It was a territory ruled by the british occupier. When you say "Palestine" you mean the same territorial strip that the Philisitines took over, in their exile from Europe, and named it after themselves in an attempt to mock the original native people of that land. Arab clans arriving there adopted the identity of "Palestinians", but that was far from the case.

People say "Palestinians" refering the Arabs who were "ethnic cleansed". That's inaccurate. My grandmother's ID says "Palestinian" and she was a Jew. By all standards, I AM a palestinian myself. There are thousands of Israelis who are infact "palestinians" by definition, but since there was no accurate Palestinian "identity" since Palestinians of that time were Arabs, Jews, Christians, and all other ethnic groups, the definition of a "Palestinian" nowdays is a total hoax.

No well, I think that this bleating statement of "no Palestine" is actually quite boring and another of the Israeli smoke screens...

And you clearly reinforce my comment by your grandmothers ID saying "Palestinian"...

I think that pro Israel supporters need to try and find another drum to beat because the "no Palestine" excuses are dead in the water!

No, in fact, I made my own point. The Palestine they talk about now is a Muslim Arab Palestine.

Chances are, you'll discover bigfoot before finding such Palestine ever existed.

Because it handn't. EVER.

No, in fact, your point is flawed...

And the Palestine that ISRAEL talks about is a Muslim/Arab Palestine....

What the Palestinian Arabs talk about is a unified Palestine....

You and your like need to have a think about the difference between culture and religion..

If you can drag yourself away from the brainwashing BS you will clearly see that there is a HUGE difference!

In the same way that there is a HUGE difference between being Jewish and being Zionist!

There is.

Many Zionists are not Jews.

 

[docmauser1]

I also watched the whole video ...

Having too much time, indeed!

His message of a fully inclusive, democratic, united Israel/Palestine resonates with me and millions of others. As he says, if Switzerland, Belgium, South Africa, Canada, the U.K. and even the U.S.A. can exist as multi-ethnic, multi-religious states, why not Israel/Palestine?

With a multi-culti disaster in the heretofore mentioned lands, It's blatantly evident the guy-whoever doesn't know what he purports to talk about, of course.

 

[Humanity]

There is.

Many Zionists are not Jews.

And many Jews are no Zionists

 

[Lipush]

There is.

Many Zionists are not Jews.

And many Jews are no Zionists

Define "not zionists".