Israel’s ‘Right to Exist’

[auditor0007]

Fortunately, the rest of the world disagrees with you, so that will never happen.

Actually more of the world agrees with me.

The only backers Israel has is the US and most of Europe.

And that is starting to change, especially in Europe.

That is because Europeans fear the Muslims in their own countries, and the Muslim population continues to expand throughout Europe. Eventually, Europeans won't have time to be concerned about Israel's problems, because they are going to have a huge problem of their own with Muslims.

 

[auditor0007]

Sunniman It;s obvious that your hatred of Israel comes from heridety (sp?)

While you can talk all you want about 'stolen land', The UN, Europe and the US helped Israel to 'steal' this land which wasn't really governed by anybody at the time anyway, so it made the task that much easier.

Fast forward 60yrs..Israeli citizens pay taxes...FOR THEIR PROTECTION. The govt of Israel has an OBLIGATION to protect its people. Did ANYONE in here or in the MSM say a peep or a word of condemnation to Hamas when 3 days this assault started, Hamas was lobbing rockets into israel. Rockets with LONGER ranges now able to hit in more populated areas. You can thank Iran for that btw..

Yes the civilian deaths are regrettable. Israel did not target them. Hamas did this for them. Hamas brought this on themselves.

The FACT that you ignore Hamas' use of rockets and targetting CIVILIANS just prior to this assualt, all the while spewing anti-semite hatred makes you a racist. Since you live in the US, let Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah duke it out...

Israel’s ‘Right to Exist’

July 29, 2008

I have heard it for the entirety of my 61 years of life–Israel’s ‘Right To Exist’. In fact, in recent memory I have heard this phrase more than I’ve heard ‘Happy Thanksgiving’ or ‘Merry Christmas’ or even ‘Have a Good 4th of July’.

Israel seems to exist quite well. Her people have a very high living standard compared to the rest of the world. Israel has the most sophisticated armed forces in the Middle East, if indeed not the world. According to one of our former presidents, Israel is said to possess several hundred nuclear weapons and if we are to believe some of the things said by Israel’s leaders in recent years she is ready to destroy mankind if her leaders choose to do so.

Israeli’s live a very good life style, second to none. A swimming pool in every back yard on stolen land, plenty of food, jobs, stocks, cash, you name it. Their quality of life continues to grow and prosper every month of every year.

Now what I have a problem with is this–doesn’t the United States of America also have a ‘Right to Exist’?

Yes we do, but unfortunately that right is being taken away from us every second, every minute, every hour, every month and every year and all for the sake of Israel’s ‘Right To Exist’. What’s wrong with this story? Well, I’ll explain what’s wrong with it and believe me, its not that hard to figure out.

You can't talk reasonably with Sunni Man because he has the same view as most other Muslims. Muslim theocracies are fine in his mind. Not allowing non-Muslims any rights in Muslim countries is permitted because that is the way it should be. But in Israel it's an abomination. He will justify racism and apartheid in Muslim countries but denounce his belief of it in Israel. The only scary thing is that there are actually some non-Muslims who agree with him.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Israel, exactly like every other nation on earth, has the right to exist because it TOOK that land and nobody has taken it away from from them.

If Palestine wants to the same right, they'll have to do the same damned thing that the Zionists did, or they'll have to appeal to the Isreali's sense of justice to find a solution that they can both live with.

Nations are NOT held to the same standard of morality as people typically are.

We can discuss history, and I am more than willing to point out where what you or I might think of as an injustice happened, but let's no pretend, shall we, that any nation on earth exists on some firm moral footing.

None of them do.




The shoirt version of ownership of that land reads like this:


Jews were on the land because they took it from the Cannites, and then their land was taken over by Rome, and then most of the Jews fled that land, and for a brief period Israel was Christianized Roman province, and then it was taken again by the Sword of the Arabs who colonized it for about 1300 years with about a 100 years interuption while the Crusaders controlled parts of it


All interesting but essantially ancient history.

Now the EUROPEAN Zionists have most recently taken that cursed place and the Arabs who'd controlled it for 1300 years lost their control over it.

Yawah doesn't give a fig who controls it.

Neither, obviously, does Allah.

For about the last five hundred years before the British came, the land was controlled and governed by the Ottoman Turks, who are not Arabs and who do not speak Arabic, and before that the land was ruled for the most part by waves of invaders from the east, most notably various groups of Mongols, who eventually became Muslims and adopted Arabic as their language. As compared to the devastation wrought by the Mongol invaders, the Crusaders were not much more than an inconvenience, but the Mongols did become Muslims, so their actions have been forgiven, and the Crusaders remained Christian, so they can never be forgiven.

It would have been more accurate to have said Muslims, not Arabs, controlled the land for about 1300 years before the British came, and what the Arab can't get over now is that Israel is not a Muslim state, not some baseless propaganda about Zionists taking their land. Had European Muslims established a state of their own where Israel is today, and had they done all the things the Zionists did to accomplish this, there would be no outrage in the Arab and Muslim worlds about the continued existence of Israel. The only thing the Arabs can't forgive about Israel is that Muslims are not in charge of it.

 

[editec]

Israel, exactly like every other nation on earth, has the right to exist because it TOOK that land and nobody has taken it away from from them.

If Palestine wants to the same right, they'll have to do the same damned thing that the Zionists did, or they'll have to appeal to the Isreali's sense of justice to find a solution that they can both live with.

Nations are NOT held to the same standard of morality as people typically are.

We can discuss history, and I am more than willing to point out where what you or I might think of as an injustice happened, but let's no pretend, shall we, that any nation on earth exists on some firm moral footing.

None of them do.




The shoirt version of ownership of that land reads like this:


Jews were on the land because they took it from the Cannites, and then their land was taken over by Rome, and then most of the Jews fled that land, and for a brief period Israel was Christianized Roman province, and then it was taken again by the Sword of the Arabs who colonized it for about 1300 years with about a 100 years interuption while the Crusaders controlled parts of it


All interesting but essantially ancient history.

Now the EUROPEAN Zionists have most recently taken that cursed place and the Arabs who'd controlled it for 1300 years lost their control over it.

Yawah doesn't give a fig who controls it.

Neither, obviously, does Allah.

For about the last five hundred years before the British came, the land was controlled and governed by the Ottoman Turks, who are not Arabs and who do not speak Arabic, and before that the land was ruled for the most part by waves of invaders from the east, most notably various groups of Mongols, who eventually became Muslims and adopted Arabic as their language.

Yeah that's exactly why I noted that I was giving the SHORT version of that land's history.

As compared to the devastation wrought by the Mongol invaders, the Crusaders were not much more than an inconvenience, but the Mongols did become Muslims, so their actions have been forgiven, and the Crusaders remained Christian, so they can never be forgiven.

I don't think the Mogol invaders made it to Palestine, did they? Didn't they stop around Kurdistan?

It would have been more accurate to have said Muslims, not Arabs, controlled the land for about 1300 years before the British came,

Yeah, okay, fair complaint.

and what the Arab can't get over now is that Israel is not a Muslim state, not some baseless propaganda about Zionists taking their land.

What they cannot get over I think is that their land was basically stolen out from under them. Religion is a good way to motivate the rest of Islam, but the Palestinians have more practical complaints than some goofy theological blather.

They're freaking homeless refugees cramped into refugee ghettos.

Had European Muslims established a state of their own where Israel is today, and had they done all the things the Zionists did to accomplish this, there would be no outrage in the Arab and Muslim worlds about the continued existence of Israel.

Yes, and had the Ottoman Empire not fallen the Zionists wouldn't have been given the go ahead to colonize that land.

I think we basically agree here, 2much.

The only thing the Arabs can't forgive about Israel is that Muslims are not in charge of it.

Not exactly...the fact that they can't live in their former homes probably plays a greater part in it for the Palistinians would be my guess.

Of course now after 60 years of propaganda and a highly complex history, we can PRETEND that this is about religion, but it's not, I think.

 

[Munin]

For about the last five hundred years before the British came, the land was controlled and governed by the Ottoman Turks, who are not Arabs and who do not speak Arabic, and before that the land was ruled for the most part by waves of invaders from the east, most notably various groups of Mongols, who eventually became Muslims and adopted Arabic as their language. As compared to the devastation wrought by the Mongol invaders, the Crusaders were not much more than an inconvenience, but the Mongols did become Muslims, so their actions have been forgiven, and the Crusaders remained Christian, so they can never be forgiven.

It would have been more accurate to have said Muslims, not Arabs, controlled the land for about 1300 years before the British came, and what the Arab can't get over now is that Israel is not a Muslim state, not some baseless propaganda about Zionists taking their land. Had European Muslims established a state of their own where Israel is today, and had they done all the things the Zionists did to accomplish this, there would be no outrage in the Arab and Muslim worlds about the continued existence of Israel. The only thing the Arabs can't forgive about Israel is that Muslims are not in charge of it.

Well you ve pretty much said that the arabs are racists and that people who are not muslim are muslims because their children are muslims. So a christian with a child that is muslim is a muslim? And a muslim with a christian child is a christian?

"but the Mongols did become Muslims, so their actions have been forgiven, and the Crusaders remained Christian, so they can never be forgiven. "
So it is OK for muslims to slaughter each other?

 

[José]

Originally posted by toomuchtime
For about the last five hundred years before the British came, the land was controlled and governed by the Ottoman Turks, who are not Arabs and who do not speak Arabic, and before that the land was ruled for the most part by waves of invaders from the east, most notably various groups of Mongols, who eventually became Muslims and adopted Arabic as their language. As compared to the devastation wrought by the Mongol invaders, the Crusaders were not much more than an inconvenience, but the Mongols did become Muslims, so their actions have been forgiven, and the Crusaders remained Christian, so they can never be forgiven.

It would have been more accurate to have said Muslims, not Arabs, controlled the land for about 1300 years before the British came, and what the Arab can't get over now is that Israel is not a Muslim state, not some baseless propaganda about Zionists taking their land. Had European Muslims established a state of their own where Israel is today, and had they done all the things the Zionists did to accomplish this, there would be no outrage in the Arab and Muslim worlds about the continued existence of Israel. The only thing the Arabs can't forgive about Israel is that Muslims are not in charge of it.

Sure...

Racial prejudice was also the driving force behind the peaceful resistance and armed struggle of native americans and black south africans against the white racial dictatorships that oppressed them in the past.

The palestinian armed struggle has absolutely nothing to do with a jewish state, racist to the bone, whose soldiers have explicit orders to shoot any individual who belongs to the "unwanted", "unofficial" ethnic group that dares trespass its borders.

 

[toomuchtime_]

For about the last five hundred years before the British came, the land was controlled and governed by the Ottoman Turks, who are not Arabs and who do not speak Arabic, and before that the land was ruled for the most part by waves of invaders from the east, most notably various groups of Mongols, who eventually became Muslims and adopted Arabic as their language. As compared to the devastation wrought by the Mongol invaders, the Crusaders were not much more than an inconvenience, but the Mongols did become Muslims, so their actions have been forgiven, and the Crusaders remained Christian, so they can never be forgiven.

It would have been more accurate to have said Muslims, not Arabs, controlled the land for about 1300 years before the British came, and what the Arab can't get over now is that Israel is not a Muslim state, not some baseless propaganda about Zionists taking their land. Had European Muslims established a state of their own where Israel is today, and had they done all the things the Zionists did to accomplish this, there would be no outrage in the Arab and Muslim worlds about the continued existence of Israel. The only thing the Arabs can't forgive about Israel is that Muslims are not in charge of it.

Well you ve pretty much said that the arabs are racists and that people who are not muslim are muslims because their children are muslims. So a christian with a child that is muslim is a muslim? And a muslim with a christian child is a christian?

"but the Mongols did become Muslims, so their actions have been forgiven, and the Crusaders remained Christian, so they can never be forgiven. "
So it is OK for muslims to slaughter each other?

Obviously it is. Saddam remained a hero to most Muslims despite the fact that he murdered at least hundreds of thousands of Muslims and subjected millions more Muslims to dangerous and painfully difficult conditions. And considered the tens of thousands of Muslims killed by Muslims during Black September in Jordan.

Black September in Jordan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sunni Man]

Obviously it is. Saddam remained a hero to most Muslims

You are wrong

Most Muslims hated Saddam

Saddam was a secularist and very anti-Islamic

 

[editec]

It is entirely possible to hate a man for some of what he does and admire him for other things.

This was, I suspect, the state that Saddam was in.

Few people weap at his death, yet many probably did admire him for not continuing to be a tool of the Americans.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Yeah that's exactly why I noted that I was giving the SHORT version of that land's history.




I don't think the Mogol invaders made it to Palestine, did they? Didn't they stop around Kurdistan?



Yeah, okay, fair complaint.




What they cannot get over I think is that their land was basically stolen out from under them. Religion is a good way to motivate the rest of Islam, but the Palestinians have more practical complaints than some goofy theological blather.

They're freaking homeless refugees cramped into refugee ghettos.




Yes, and had the Ottoman Empire not fallen the Zionists wouldn't have been given the go ahead to colonize that land.

I think we basically agree here, 2much.

The only thing the Arabs can't forgive about Israel is that Muslims are not in charge of it.

Not exactly...the fact that they can't live in their former homes probably plays a greater part in it for the Palistinians would be my guess.

Of course now after 60 years of propaganda and a highly complex history, we can PRETEND that this is about religion, but it's not, I think.

It's not really relevant to my point, but I've read references to the Mongols making it to Syria and right into the twentieth century the Syrians claimed what is now Israel and the territories as part of Greater Syria. In any case, the horrific devastation wrought by Mongol armies was much greater that that wrought by the Crusaders, but in the mind and rhetoric of Arabs and many Muslims today, what the Mongols did is all but forgotten and what the Crusaders is grossly exaggerated. I would argue that if the Mongols had not converted to Islam, their deeds would not have been forgotten and if the Crusaders had converted their deeds would be forgiven.

First, saying that the Palestinians' land was stolen from them is just a propaganda slogan with no basis in fact or logic. Second, the fact that you may not think religion is a sufficient reason for the Palestinians' actions is not a reasonable basis for assuming that they don't think it is. If you read the Hamas Covenant, it is clear that for Hamas, religion is the whole reason for their actions and that economic and political motivations play no part in their motivation, goofy blather about stolen land and poverty is just used by them to motivate some Palestinians who might not share their religious ardor.

As defined by UNWRA and as used by the Palestinians in negotiations with Israel, a refugee is some one or his/her descendants who lived in pre 1967 Israel for two years between 1946 and 1948 and who left during the hostilities that followed the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948. Using this definition it is as fair to say that a refugee is the great grandchild of an Arab who lived in Israel for only two years and then left to join the invading armies as it is to characterize a refugee as some one who left his/her historical homeland to seek refuge from the coming battle: in other words, without clarification, "refugee" is just a propaganda slogan intended to drive sentiments against Israel.

The people in th refugee camps are not homeless, obviously, they live in houses or apartments and in the territories the camps now have a wide range of housing facilities ranging from luxury homes and and apartments for the political elite who still want to live among their constituents to essentially working class housing on a par with such housing in the region. Conditions in some Arab countries are much harsher for these people, but one might ask why, three generations later, they are still in camps. Why haven't they integrated in the population of the country they have been living in for three generations or moved somewhere else? There are two reasons. First UNWRA supports the refugees while they remain in the camps and since UNWRA hires from the local population and makes purchases locally when possible, maintaining the people in the camps is a boost to the local economy. If these people were to become citizens of the host country, they would lose the subsidies and benefits they get from UNWRA and the local economy would lose those jobs and that flow of cash. The other reason they are kept in these camps is that this allows the anti Israeli fanaticism that is a core value of Arab culture to use propaganda terms like homeless and ghetto in their efforts to drive anti Israeli sentiment.

Colonize is yet another propaganda term. If the Ottoman Empire had not fallen, not only would Israel not exist as a nation but neither would Syria or Iraq or Jordan or Lebanon. Did the leaders of these Arab countries colonize the land when they established their governments over the objections of some of the people who lived there.

 

[José]

Originally posted by toomuchtime
The people in th refugee camps are not homeless, obviously, they live in houses or apartments and in the territories the camps now have a wide range of housing facilities ranging from luxury homes and and apartments for the political elite who still want to live among their constituents to essentially working class housing on a par with such housing in the region. Conditions in some Arab countries are much harsher for these people, but one might ask why, three generations later, they are still in camps. Why haven't they integrated in the population of the country they have been living in for three generations or moved somewhere else? There are two reasons. First UNWRA supports the refugees while they remain in the camps and since UNWRA hires from the local population and makes purchases locally when possible, maintaining the people in the camps is a boost to the local economy. If these people were to become citizens of the host country, they would lose the subsidies and benefits they get from UNWRA and the local economy would lose those jobs and that flow of cash. The other reason they are kept in these camps is that this allows the anti Israeli fanaticism that is a core value of Arab culture to use propaganda terms like homeless and ghetto in their efforts to drive anti Israeli sentiment.

tsk, tsk, tsk…

This is the kind of stinky bullshit you have to put up with when people who know nothing about Palestinian arabs decide to pontificate on the matter.

Palestinians in Jordan ARE full citizens of the state, BUT THEY DO NOT THINK ABOUT THEMSELVES AS JORDANIANS. In fact the relationship between Jordanians and Palestinians has always been grumpy since 48 when the country received its first wave of refugees.

A piece of paper is not enough to destroy their national identity, their sense of belonging to a people with a shared history forged by ottoman and british colonialism as well as by the zionist movement.

The day Egypt, Jordan, Syria or any other arab country try to occupy the West Bank and Gaza or supress the palestinian national identity of the palestinian diaspora, in order to turn them into Syrians, Egyptians or Jordanians will be the day Palestinians will start armed rebellions and uprisings against those arab countries and then, 10 year later, when arab countries finally left those regions and give up trying to destroy their national identity, due to a rising body count, we’ll be right back to square one:

Palestinians demanding their right to live in what they consider to be their homeland (regardless of your personal opinion).

 

[José]

Originally posted by toomuchtime
The people in th refugee camps are not homeless, obviously, they live in houses or apartments and in the territories the camps now have a wide range of housing facilities ranging from luxury homes and and apartments for the political elite who still want to live among their constituents to essentially working class housing on a par with such housing in the region. Conditions in some Arab countries are much harsher for these people, but one might ask why, three generations later, they are still in camps. Why haven't they integrated in the population of the country they have been living in for three generations or moved somewhere else? There are two reasons. First UNWRA supports the refugees while they remain in the camps and since UNWRA hires from the local population and makes purchases locally when possible, maintaining the people in the camps is a boost to the local economy. If these people were to become citizens of the host country, they would lose the subsidies and benefits they get from UNWRA and the local economy would lose those jobs and that flow of cash. The other reason they are kept in these camps is that this allows the anti Israeli fanaticism that is a core value of Arab culture to use propaganda terms like homeless and ghetto in their efforts to drive anti Israeli sentiment.

As defined by UNWRA and as used by the Palestinians in negotiations with Israel, a refugee is some one or his/her descendants who lived in pre 1967 Israel for two years between 1946 and 1948 and who left during the hostilities that followed the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948. Using this definition it is as fair to say that a refugee is the great grandchild of an Arab who lived in Israel for only two years and then left to join the invading armies as it is to characterize a refugee as some one who left his/her historical homeland to seek refuge from the coming battle: in other words, without clarification, "refugee" is just a propaganda slogan intended to drive sentiments against Israel.

Who are you trying to fool, buddy?

Everybody in Israel knows that Palestinian refugee camps are crammed with hundreds of thousands of Palestinian families who inhabited the land for hundreds of years and now demand that their rights as natives of the land is respected.

The fact that you use those arabs who lived in Palestine for only two years before 48 as an attempt to delegitimise the legitimate claims of all those families speaks volumes about the fairness of your arguments.

And it is also somewhat pathetic that you have such a big problem with arabs who spent two years in pre Israel Palestine when you have no problem at all with hundreds of thousands of Ashkenazi Jews flocking to that region after WW II.

This is the kind of mutual dehumanization that needs to stop in order to do away with racism, segregation and apartheid in Palestine:

Palestinian shitheads insisting that the hundreds of thousands of european jews and their descendants who got in Palestine after WW II will have to leave because the region is not their historical homeland.

Israeli shitheads claiming that the offspring of the arabs who arrived in the region a few years before Israel’s creation are not Palestinians and have no right to live in the western part of that region.

Well… I’ve got some bad news for both groups of shitheads: the children of all those european jews and arabs ARE PALESTINIANS NOW IN 2009 BECAUSE THEY ABSORBED THE JEWISH/ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN NATIONAL IDENTITY, respectively.

All these shitheads must be neutralized; all the dehumanization of the other side they preach must be totally rejected by both sides and the fact that the entire region is the homeland of both peoples must be strongly emphasized SO THAT SANE PALESTINIANS AND ISRAELIS can start the process of desegregation of Palestine.

 

[editec]

Yeah that's exactly why I noted that I was giving the SHORT version of that land's history.




I don't think the Mogol invaders made it to Palestine, did they? Didn't they stop around Kurdistan?



Yeah, okay, fair complaint.




What they cannot get over I think is that their land was basically stolen out from under them. Religion is a good way to motivate the rest of Islam, but the Palestinians have more practical complaints than some goofy theological blather.

They're freaking homeless refugees cramped into refugee ghettos.




Yes, and had the Ottoman Empire not fallen the Zionists wouldn't have been given the go ahead to colonize that land.

I think we basically agree here, 2much.




Not exactly...the fact that they can't live in their former homes probably plays a greater part in it for the Palistinians would be my guess.

Of course now after 60 years of propaganda and a highly complex history, we can PRETEND that this is about religion, but it's not, I think.

It's not really relevant to my point, but I've read references to the Mongols making it to Syria and right into the twentieth century the Syrians claimed what is now Israel and the territories as part of Greater Syria. In any case, the horrific devastation wrought by Mongol armies was much greater that that wrought by the Crusaders, but in the mind and rhetoric of Arabs and many Muslims today, what the Mongols did is all but forgotten and what the Crusaders is grossly exaggerated. I would argue that if the Mongols had not converted to Islam, their deeds would not have been forgotten and if the Crusaders had converted their deeds would be forgiven.

Interesting theory. How that is relevant to the current state of affairs is a bit of a streetch, though.

First, saying that the Palestinians' land was stolen from them is just a propaganda slogan with no basis in fact or logic.

Say what? This is a fact, jack.

Second, the fact that you may not think religion is a sufficient reason for the Palestinians' actions is not a reasonable basis for assuming that they don't think it is. If you read the Hamas Covenant, it is clear that for Hamas, religion is the whole reason for their actions and that economic and political motivations play no part in their motivation, goofy blather about stolen land and poverty is just used by them to motivate some Palestinians who might not share their religious ardor.

It is clear to you but it surely isn't to those Palestinians still living in Ghettos who have the keys to their former homes AND THE LEGAL TITLES TO THEIR LANDS too, sport.

As defined by UNWRA and as used by the Palestinians in negotiations with Israel, a refugee is some one or his/her descendants who lived in pre 1967 Israel for two years between 1946 and 1948 and who left during the hostilities that followed the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948.

Makes sense.

Using this definition it is as fair to say that a refugee is the great grandchild of an Arab who lived in Israel for only two years

Bullshit. ONLY two years? Try something in the realm of 1300 years, amigo.

and then left to join the invading armies

Spin ALERT....or they ran for their lives to get the hell out of the way of two opposing armies just like refugees have ALWAYS done in every war.

Your anti-Arab prejudices are fairly apparent.

as it is to characterize a refugee as some one who left his/her historical homeland to seek refuge from the coming battle: in other words, without clarification, "refugee" is just a propaganda slogan intended to drive sentiments against Israel.

You're fucking nuts. They got out of the way of a war and the only word to describe those people is refugees.

The people in th refugee camps are not homeless, obviously, they live in houses or apartments and in the territories the camps now have a wide range of housing facilities ranging from luxury homes and and apartments for the political elite who still want to live among their constituents to essentially working class housing on a par with such housing in the region

.

What a load of fucking mitigating blather.

Conditions in some Arab countries are much harsher for these people, but one might ask why, three generations later, they are still in camps. Why haven't they integrated in the population of the country they have been living in for three generations or moved somewhere else?

Because they cannot?

They're bereft of money and are not welcome to integrate, perhaps?

There are two reasons. First UNWRA supports the refugees while they remain in the camps and since UNWRA hires from the local population and makes purchases locally when possible, maintaining the people in the camps is a boost to the local economy. If these people were to become citizens of the host country, they would lose the subsidies and benefits they get from UNWRA and the local economy would lose those jobs and that flow of cash. The other reason they are kept in these camps is that this allows the anti Israeli fanaticism that is a core value of Arab culture to use propaganda terms like homeless and ghetto in their efforts to drive anti Israeli sentiment.

Tow plausible reasons I'm inclined to give credence to. But tell me, does that make the refugees anything but VICTIMS?

No it does not.

Colonize is yet another propaganda term. If the Ottoman Empire had not fallen, not only would Israel not exist as a nation but neither would Syria or Iraq or Jordan or Lebanon.

True...so?

Did the leaders of these Arab countries colonize the land when they established their governments over the objections of some of the people who lived there.

Colonize?

They already lived there so attempting to call that colonization is a bit insane, don't you think?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Interesting theory. How that is relevant to the current state of affairs is a bit of a streetch, though.

I should have thought that would be obvious. I was responding to your unsupported claim that the Arab hostility towards Israel is based on economic considerations by showing a long history of only holding resentments against non Muslims.

Say what? This is a fact, jack.

Saying that the Palestinians had their land stolen from them without specifying exactly when and how is obviously a propaganda slogan. Are you referring to private land ownership or the political control of the area? Are you talking about Palestinian claims of land theft by Jews during the Ottoman period, the Mandate period or after Israel's War of Independence? According to the British reports to the League of Nations (available at the UN website), British courts found that 80% of the Arab claims of land theft by Jews were without any merit and all but a few of the remaining 20% were the result of simple misunderstandings or contract disputes. In other words, the British courts found there was no evidence of land theft by Jews during the Mandate period.

If you are referring to the period after the war, again, there is no basis in fact for saying the land was stolen, since Israeli courts were open to hearing claims from Arabs who had left before or during the war that they should be allowed to return and reclaim their property on an individual basis. Few took advantage of this opportunity, but some who did were allowed back into Israel and either got their property back or received compensation for it.

With only a few exceptions, the Arabs who had left relied on the promises of Arab leaders to conquer Israel and restore these refugees to their homes instead of pursuing their individual legal options in Israeli courts. So were their lands stolen from them or did they effectively abandon their homes by choosing to rely on Arab promises to conquer Israel instead of pursuing their individual legal options?

Quote:
Second, the fact that you may not think religion is a sufficient reason for the Palestinians' actions is not a reasonable basis for assuming that they don't think it is. If you read the Hamas Covenant, it is clear that for Hamas, religion is the whole reason for their actions and that economic and political motivations play no part in their motivation, goofy blather about stolen land and poverty is just used by them to motivate some Palestinians who might not share their religious ardor.

It is clear to you but it surely isn't to those Palestinians still living in Ghettos who have the keys to their former homes AND THE LEGAL TITLES TO THEIR LANDS too, sport.

It is clear to anyone who has bothered to read the Hamas Covenant that religion is the whole reason for Hamas' crusade against Israel and that Hamas considers the conquest of Israel as only one step towards re establishing the Caliphate. When Hamas speaks of stolen land, according to the Hamas Covenant, they mean land that was consecrated to Islam by Allah, not to private property.

No one other than UNWRA knows how many of the refugees hold deeds to land in Israel, and UNWRA has consistently refused to release any of this information. However, if a refugee did hold a valid Ottoman or British deed to such land, he had the legal option of bringing suit in Israeli courts on an individual basis for the return of that property or compensation for it. If he did not pursue this option, it is fair to say that, either through ignorance of his rights or political motivations or fear of reprisals from othe refugees or militants, he abandoned his property.

In any case, since you have no way of knowing if more than a few of the refugees hold deeds to property in Israel, it is unreasonable to characterize them as a group as holding such deeds.


Makes sense.




Bullshit. ONLY two years? Try something in the realm of 1300 years, amigo.

Since the term, refugee, as used by the UN and by the Palestinians, themselves, refers to a group of people who have only one thing in common, that they lived in Israel for two years between 1946 and 1948 and then left, it would be unreasonable to characterize them in any other way. 1300 years might refer to the family histories of a few, but according to the British reports to the League of Nations, to only a very few, even 100 years would refer to only a very few. In fact, according to the British, the vast majority of Arabs who were in what became Israel migrated there from the surrounding countries during the 1930's and 1940's in response to the jobs created by the growing economy west of the Jordan River, especially along the coast, and calls by Arab leaders to move to the area in an effort to persuade the League of Nations, and later the UN, not to create a Jewish state there.

After the widespread anti Jewish riots of the 1920's the British tried to quiet the conflict by orderring immigration by both Arabs and Jews into the area be brought almost to a halt, but they report that while they were successful in stopping almost all Jewish immigration, they were unable to stop massive migrations of Arabs from the surrounding countries. The fact is that the vast majority of Arabs who became refugees had been in the area for less than a generation and a great many for only a few years, and none of these had any historical ties to the land. There is absolutely no basis in fact or logic for invoking "1300 years" when characterizing the refugees or their descendants.





Spin ALERT....or they ran for their lives to get the hell out of the way of two opposing armies just like refugees have ALWAYS done in every war.

Your anti-Arab prejudices are fairly apparent.

It is as fair to say the those who left did so to join the invading armies as to say they left to avoid the battle because we just don't know for sure what was in their minds. What we do know is that with very few exceptions these refugees did not pursue their individual legal options in Israeli courts but relied instead on the promises of Arab leaders to restore them to the land after the conquest of Israel.




You're fucking nuts. They got out of the way of a war and the only word to describe those people is refugees.

Again, you have no way of knowing if they left to get out of the way of a battle or to join the invading Arab armies. If the latter was the case, then characterizing them as refugees is a propaganda slogan.

.

What a load of fucking mitigating blather.

The people in th refugee camps are not homeless, obviously, they live in houses or apartments and in the territories the camps now have a wide range of housing facilities ranging from luxury homes and and apartments for the political elite who still want to live among their constituents to essentially working class housing on a par with such housing in the region. You may not like this fact, but it true.




Because they cannot?

They're bereft of money and are not welcome to integrate, perhaps?





Tow plausible reasons I'm inclined to give credence to. But tell me, does that make the refugees anything but VICTIMS?

No it does not.

But victims of what country? Perhaps they are victims of the countries that host the camps but will not allow them to integrate into the society or perhaps they are victims of UNWRA that will pay them to remain in the camps but not to emigrate to some place where there is more opportunity.



True...so?




Colonize?

According to the British reports to the League of Nations, the vast majority of Arabs and Jews in Israel in 1948 arrived during the same period, so it is incorrect to characterize these recently arrived Arabs as the indigenous population and the Jews who arrived at about the same time as colonizers.

They already lived there so attempting to call that colonization is a bit insane, don't you think?

There is absolutely no evidence to support any of the claims you make about either what you believe Israel has done or about what you believe about the refugees.

 

[José]

Originally posted by toomuchtime
Conditions in some Arab countries are much harsher for these people, but one might ask why, three generations later, they are still in camps. Why haven't they integrated in the population of the country they have been living in for three generations or moved somewhere else?
There are two reasons. First UNWRA supports the refugees while they remain in the camps and since UNWRA hires from the local population and makes purchases locally when possible, maintaining the people in the camps is a boost to the local economy. If these people were to become citizens of the host country, they would lose the subsidies and benefits they get from UNWRA and the local economy would lose those jobs and that flow of cash. The other reason they are kept in these camps is that this allows the anti Israeli fanaticism that is a core value of Arab culture to use propaganda terms like homeless and ghetto in their efforts to drive anti Israeli sentiment.

Originally posted by editec
Tow plausible reasons I'm inclined to give credence to. But tell me, does that make the refugees anything but VICTIMS?

No it does not.

Arab countries convincing Palestinian refugees to give up their national identity and consider themselves as Syrians, Jordanians and Egyptians is about as “plausible” as China colonizing the US, creating an American refugee problem in the process and proposing that Britain or Anglo Canadians turn them into British subjects or Canadian nationals since they all speak the same language, have many cultural traits in common and even shared the same national identity in the past.

 

[José]

Originally posted by toomuchtime
No one other than UNWRA knows how many of the refugees hold deeds to land in Israel, and UNWRA has consistently refused to release any of this information. However, if a refugee did hold a valid Ottoman or British deed to such land, he had the legal option of bringing suit in Israeli courts on an individual basis for the return of that property or compensation for it. If he did not pursue this option, it is fair to say that, either through ignorance of his rights or political motivations or fear of reprisals from othe refugees or militants, he abandoned his property.

Now you abandoned any attempt to formulate a coherent argument.

Palestinian property was seized and nationalized by the Jewish National Fund under the Absentee Property Laws while at the same time Ben Gurion made sure that Palestinians would remain "absentees" forever by stationing troops around Gaza and the West Bank with orders to arrest or shoot any returning refugee.

And your claim that Palestinians have a fair chance to live in Western Palestine is both laughable and cynical. Their land was "legally" confiscated from 1948 on and israeli courts will do nothing but rubber stamp the racist Absentee Laws.

Originally posted by toomuchtime
After the widespread anti Jewish riots of the 1920's the British tried to quiet the conflict by orderring immigration by both Arabs and Jews into the area be brought almost to a halt, but they report that while they were successful in stopping almost all Jewish immigration, they were unable to stop massive migrations of Arabs from the surrounding countries. The fact is that the vast majority of Arabs who became refugees had been in the area for less than a generation and a great many for only a few years, and none of these had any historical ties to the land. There is absolutely no basis in fact or logic for invoking "1300 years" when characterizing the refugees or their descendants.

Yeah... the same old mantra parroted by all racial dictatorships in human history...

We know how it goes: a land without a people for a etc, etc ... an uninhabited, uncivilized land... etc, etc...

More dehumanization, more rationalized excuses and historical distortions to delegitimise the right of a group of human beings to live in their homeland.

This dehumanizing discourse is the sole responsible for the perpetuation of this conflict. It must be strongly opposed by a discourse that emphasizes the full humanity of all the peoples of Palestine.

The opinions expressed by this poster, as well as his palestinian counterparts, are part of the problem in Palestine, not of the solution.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

PubliusInfinitum,

Wow, what a load of hate.

I understand your perspective -much as a I disagree with most of it- but I think you focused too much on dissecting my post and making irrelevant comments on my paragraph transitions, rather than give me a coherent overall argument. Although I was able to interpret a deep resentment for Palestinians, Arabs, and the political left, and a distorted hindsight on the plight of Palestinians in the 20th century.

Yeah it's true I resent mass murderers and their sychophants on the ideological left that promote their interests.

The Palestinians are the scourge of the earth... Their 'plight' is a result of THEIR CHOICES... THEIR ACTIONS AND THE MASS MURDER OF INNOCENTS...

The fact is, that IF the Palestinians DECIDED TO STOP KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE TODAY... then they'd enjoy peace in their own state... TODAY!

They're the ones that bring war and that means they're the only ones that can stop war... and the misdirection of blaming of Israel is never going to change that OR establish peace.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This dehumanizing discourse is the sole responsible for the perpetuation of this conflict. It must be strongly opposed by a discourse that emphasizes the full humanity of all the peoples of Palestine.

Huh... So you're saying that the mass murdering Palestinians; the people who have BROKEN EVERY SINGLE TREATY WHICH THEY'VE DEMANDED THROUGH THEIR MASS MURDERING TACTICS... are human beings?

Really? They're just human beings that reject human rights? Somehow, in my book that sorta discounts their humanity... which establishes them as sub-human; and beyond being equitable with sub-species, they're a fucking menace... and historically, that's been a bad place to be...

As I've said many times, IF the Palestinians stopped murdering inncoent people TODAY... they'd enjoy PEACE, TODAY. They're the people making war and as such, they're the ONLY ONES that can STOP THAT WAR... and the only means that they have to stop that war, is to just STOP...

 

[GHook93]

All interesting but essantially ancient history.

Now the EUROPEAN Zionists have most recently taken that cursed place and the Arabs who'd controlled it for 1300 years lost their control over it.


Yawah doesn't give a fig who controls it.

Neither, obviously, does Allah.

First off you have never been there if you call it a cursed place. You would be surprised how funny, interesting, western, stable and safe the place is!

Second, the Arabs Crusaders had didn't rule it for 1,300.
Here is a timeline from when the Arab Crusaders (Caliphates took over)
614-628 With the Persians/Iranians help the Jews were able to kick the Byzantines out and reclaim Israel/Palestine, but they both wanted it. Althought it still is who do you believe on who betrayed who, both made deals with the Byzantines.
628-634 The Byzantines obvious went back on their deal with the Jews and took over
634-660 The first Arab Caliphate lead by grand warlord Mohammed.
660-750 Umayyad Dynasty took over - the 2nd Caliphate
750-960s Bagdad/Iraqi based Abbasd Clan took over by the sword - 3rd Arab Caliphate
960s-1099 Falimid from Tunsia invading from Egypt took over
1099-1187 The Christian Crusaders - defeat by a Kurd - Salim
1270-1516 Mamlukkute Dynasty - the 4th Arab Caliphate
1516-1917 Ottoman Empire - Turkish Rule. During this period Palestine/Israel was at its lowest populacy, which included Jordan
1917-1948 British Mandates, which in 1922 broke up Palestine to TransJordan

During the Ottoman Empire, Palestine/Israel was very sparesly populated. What most people don't realize is that Arab immigration to Israel started in the late 1800s and really increased greatly in the 1900s especially during the British White Papers period, where Jewish immigration was forbidden and Arab immigration was unrestricted entirely!

 

[GHook93]

tsk, tsk, tsk…

This is the kind of stinky bullshit you have to put up with when people who know nothing about Palestinian arabs decide to pontificate on the matter.

Palestinians in Jordan ARE full citizens of the state, BUT THEY DO NOT THINK ABOUT THEMSELVES AS JORDANIANS. In fact the relationship between Jordanians and Palestinians has always been grumpy since 48 when the country received its first wave of refugees.

The reason they always had a shady relationship is Palestinians are still miffed that TransJordan look half of ancient Palestine/Israel, which was given to the Hashemite Clan.

Not to mention when the Palestinians tried to overthrown the Hashemites, Jordan hit back in force killing 10s of thousands of Palestinians and expelling a heck of a lot more in what is known as Black September in 1970. Prime reason Hamas, Fatah, the PLO or PFPR doesn't operate in Jordan is because the Jordanians suppress any attempt by these groups, since they are just as likely to overthrown Jordan as Israel. The only difference is the world, especially the Arab world can give a shit when Arabs kill Arabs or when Arabs kill anyone (see the Sudan for that example). Jordan will also never become a democracy, because the Palestinian make up close to 50% of Jordanian population, that means the Palestinians could vote in a coup!

A piece of paper is not enough to destroy their national identity, their sense of belonging to a people with a shared history forged by ottoman and british colonialism as well as by the zionist movement.

LOL, the national identity didn't start until the 60s, which was pushed on by the Arabs nations!

The day Egypt, Jordan, Syria or any other arab country try to occupy the West Bank and Gaza or supress the palestinian national identity of the palestinian diaspora, in order to turn them into Syrians, Egyptians or Jordanians will be the day Palestinians will start armed rebellions and uprisings against those arab countries and then, 10 year later, when arab countries finally left those regions and give up trying to destroy their national identity, due to a rising body count, we’ll be right back to square one:

WRONG, they didn't do they by holding them in quote/unquote refugee camps. They don't let them assimulate into their societies, which in wrong altogether. The could assimulate easily, especially in Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They are Arabs, they are Muslims, they are Sunni Muslims, they speak Arabic, they have very similar cultures, they have very similar values etc.

Palestinians demanding their right to live in what they consider to be their homeland (regardless of your personal opinion).

but you deny the Jews! Can't have it both ways!