Lest we forget...

[Phoenall]

What was happening at the time was a war. As usual, Team Pallywood tries to paint the Arab Muslims as innocent civilians being massacred by violent and evil Israelis when they were in fact, militants hiding and attacking from amongst a civilian population.

No different than today.

They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing. As usual zionists try to paint them as "evil terrorists" bent on the extermination of "the Jewish people" in order to deflect attention from the magnitude of their crimes against defenceless old people, women and children.

Of course they were and they did not lift a finger to hurt the Jews at any time did they. Just as hamas, fatah and islamic jihad have never raised a finger against the Jews to warrant return of fire. How is it that every arab muslim is an innocent civilian to your neo marxists and islamonazi's. Why do you constantly inflate the numbers even when the evidence shows that they were impossible to achieve. As in claiming 700,000 refugees were forcibly evicted when the last census showed that only 350,000 lived there and this figure included trans Jordan. The most crimes were committed by the same arab muslims who raped, stole, pillaged and murdered their way across palestine from 1917 to 1948. Try reading some proper history books and see what they have to say, or does your brain turn off when it see's the truth and goes into hibernation.


NOW WHEN DID THE LoN GIVE THE LAND TO THE ARAB MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS AFTER HAVING ALREADY GIVEN THEM TRANS JORDAN

 

[Phoenall]

They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.

So, you are putting forth the argument that the events in Lydda in 1948 happened outside the context of war and that there was no military value to the town and that not a single military action was taken by any of the residents of the town.

Really? That's what you are going with?

Dont confuse him with the TRUTH or he will have to resort to claiming it is zionist propaganda or hasbara lies just to stop his shakes and terrible nightmares.

 

[Roudy]

What was happening at the time was a war. As usual, Team Pallywood tries to paint the Arab Muslims as innocent civilians being massacred by violent and evil Israelis when they were in fact, militants hiding and attacking from amongst a civilian population.

No different than today.

They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing. As usual zionists try to paint them as "evil terrorists" bent on the extermination of "the Jewish people" in order to deflect attention from the magnitude of their crimes against defenceless old people, women and children.

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, et al,

Well, actually --- the Lydda and Ramle Event (July 1948) did happen in the broader context of the May 1948 War of Independence against the aggressor initiated action of the Combined Arms Force of the Arab League.

They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.

So, you are putting forth the argument that the events in Lydda in 1948 happened outside the context of war and that there was no military value to the town and that not a single military action was taken by any of the residents of the town.
Really? That's what you are going with?

Dont confuse him with the TRUTH or he will have to resort to claiming it is zionist propaganda or hasbara lies just to stop his shakes and terrible nightmares.

(COMMENT)

There are all kinds of perspectives to that particular event and other multiple events of a similar character.

• Those only interested in the event for its political exploitation value as Anti-Israeli Propaganda, do not see it as anything other than "ethnic cleansing."

Potential Aspects:

• They do not recognize the action, as a matter of internal defense and rear area protection, a countermeasure to threats against sabotage, subversion and espionage.

• Protecting lines of communication and supply routes.

• Protection against insurgent action and covert action (stay behind mode).
​

This is a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" battlefield obligation. Israel, as a party to the conflict, MUST to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives. While many, many many pro-Arab-League aggression, want to paint this event (and other events like it) as illegal and against international humanitarian law, the practice of this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in international, and arguably also in non-international, armed conflicts, is well established.

Most pro-Arab League aggression defenders, want to suggest something else entirely; --- by citing Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Deportations, Transfers and Evacuations. They rarely if ever cite (if ever) the exception: "Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand." But event the ICRC recognizes that this practice does not violate the prohibition of the forcible displacement of a civilian population --- because the recognized exception is when "security" considerations. In these contemporary times, International Law articulates this idea in part as Article 58(a) of Protocol 1.

Article 58 [ Link ] -- Precautions against the effects of attacks

The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:

(a) without prejudice to Article 49 [ Link ] of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;

(b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;

(c) take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.
​

As you can see, there are more reasons to effect the evacuation than not.

The principle purpose of the anti-Israeli movement to continuously bring this type of complaint, is because they want to attempt to convince the reader that there is absolutely on other interpretation, reasoning or law, that can be applied. This is a type of selective hearing, wherein they see only what they want to see; that which is favorable to them --- but, unfavorable to the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

​

The principle purpose of the anti-Israeli movement to continuously bring this type of complaint, is because they want to attempt to convince the reader that there is absolutely on other interpretation, reasoning or law, that can be applied.

The purpose is to perpetuate the antisemitic libel that Jews are evil and murder "innocent" Arabs without cause.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Phoenall, et al,

Well, actually --- the Lydda and Ramle Event (July 1948) did happen in the broader context of the May 1948 War of Independence against the aggressor initiated action of the Combined Arms Force of the Arab League.

They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.

So, you are putting forth the argument that the events in Lydda in 1948 happened outside the context of war and that there was no military value to the town and that not a single military action was taken by any of the residents of the town.
Really? That's what you are going with?

Dont confuse him with the TRUTH or he will have to resort to claiming it is zionist propaganda or hasbara lies just to stop his shakes and terrible nightmares.

(COMMENT)

There are all kinds of perspectives to that particular event and other multiple events of a similar character.

• Those only interested in the event for its political exploitation value as Anti-Israeli Propaganda, do not see it as anything other than "ethnic cleansing."

Potential Aspects:

• They do not recognize the action, as a matter of internal defense and rear area protection, a countermeasure to threats against sabotage, subversion and espionage.

• Protecting lines of communication and supply routes.

• Protection against insurgent action and covert action (stay behind mode).
​

This is a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" battlefield obligation. Israel, as a party to the conflict, MUST to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives. While many, many many pro-Arab-League aggression, want to paint this event (and other events like it) as illegal and against international humanitarian law, the practice of this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in international, and arguably also in non-international, armed conflicts, is well established.

Most pro-Arab League aggression defenders, want to suggest something else entirely; --- by citing Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Deportations, Transfers and Evacuations. They rarely if ever cite (if ever) the exception: "Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand." But event the ICRC recognizes that this practice does not violate the prohibition of the forcible displacement of a civilian population --- because the recognized exception is when "security" considerations. In these contemporary times, International Law articulates this idea in part as Article 58(a) of Protocol 1.

Article 58 [ Link ] -- Precautions against the effects of attacks

The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:

(a) without prejudice to Article 49 [ Link ] of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;

(b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;

(c) take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.
​

As you can see, there are more reasons to effect the evacuation than not.

The principle purpose of the anti-Israeli movement to continuously bring this type of complaint, is because they want to attempt to convince the reader that there is absolutely on other interpretation, reasoning or law, that can be applied. This is a type of selective hearing, wherein they see only what they want to see; that which is favorable to them --- but, unfavorable to the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

You missed the fact that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians was the reason for the war.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Not according to the reports that show the arab muslims were attacking the Jews as israel did not exist at that time, It was the Arab league that invaded Jewish lands in 1947 with the sole intention of wiping out the Jews and destroying any chance of their being a Jewish homeland. The problem has always been and always will be islam and its 7C religion.


Show one instance of Israel attacking that was not as a direct result of arab muslim attacks ?

Show one instance of an attack that was not related to colonialism.

You terrorist lovers always get it backwards. The land is ancient Jewish religious and ancestral land. And despite the many invasions, the Jews always maintained a presence and kept coming back over the mellenia. The Arabs are the real invaders and colonialists. The Middle East is littered with countries they invaded, looted, and destroyed.

Battle of Hebron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1834 Hebron massacre occurred in early August 1834,[1] when the forces of Ibrahim Pasha launched an assault against Hebron to crush the last pocket of significant resistance.

Mass killings and rapes by the Egyptian troops took place in Hebron after they captured the city from the rebels. The Jews of Hebron had not participated in the rebellion, but Egyptian soldiers who entered the city ignored this.[13] For three hours, troops committed atrocities against the people of Hebron.[16] The Jews were not subject to Pasha's conscription policy but suffered the "most cruel outrages"[17] and were targeted for "special violence".[18] While many Muslims managed to escape the impending danger, the Jews remained, confident they would not be harmed by the Egyptians. Apparently, the Jews of Jerusalem had received an assurance from Ibrahim that Hebron's Jews would be protected.[19] In the end, seven Jewish men[16][20][21] and five girls[1][16] were killed. Isaac Farhi also described violent attacks on the Jews of Hebron committed by Egyptian soldiers.[22] He writes that the attack in Hebron was even worse than the plunder in Safed. Synagogues were desecrated,[23] houses were ransacked, and valuable items were stolen[24] leaving the Jewish community of Hebron destitute.[25]

A hundred year old attack by Egypt is the best you can do?

Then how about the 1929 massacre of the Jews on the mufti's orders, or the attacks on the Jews during the civil war of 1920 and 1931. And lastly the invasion by arab league troops in 1947 to wipe out the Jews and stop the creation of Israel. The proclamations of the arab leaders spell out why they were invading, and it was only after they put troops in place that they changed their words because the UN warned them it was a breach of the UN charter which they had signed.

Do you mean all of that stuff that happened after the beginning of the colonial project?

 

[P F Tinmore]

They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.

So, you are putting forth the argument that the events in Lydda in 1948 happened outside the context of war and that there was no military value to the town and that not a single military action was taken by any of the residents of the town.

Really? That's what you are going with?

You really need to read your own post.

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, et al,

Well, actually --- the Lydda and Ramle Event (July 1948) did happen in the broader context of the May 1948 War of Independence against the aggressor initiated action of the Combined Arms Force of the Arab League.

They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.

So, you are putting forth the argument that the events in Lydda in 1948 happened outside the context of war and that there was no military value to the town and that not a single military action was taken by any of the residents of the town.
Really? That's what you are going with?

Dont confuse him with the TRUTH or he will have to resort to claiming it is zionist propaganda or hasbara lies just to stop his shakes and terrible nightmares.

(COMMENT)

There are all kinds of perspectives to that particular event and other multiple events of a similar character.

• Those only interested in the event for its political exploitation value as Anti-Israeli Propaganda, do not see it as anything other than "ethnic cleansing."

Potential Aspects:

• They do not recognize the action, as a matter of internal defense and rear area protection, a countermeasure to threats against sabotage, subversion and espionage.

• Protecting lines of communication and supply routes.

• Protection against insurgent action and covert action (stay behind mode).
​

This is a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" battlefield obligation. Israel, as a party to the conflict, MUST to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives. While many, many many pro-Arab-League aggression, want to paint this event (and other events like it) as illegal and against international humanitarian law, the practice of this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in international, and arguably also in non-international, armed conflicts, is well established.

Most pro-Arab League aggression defenders, want to suggest something else entirely; --- by citing Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Deportations, Transfers and Evacuations. They rarely if ever cite (if ever) the exception: "Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand." But event the ICRC recognizes that this practice does not violate the prohibition of the forcible displacement of a civilian population --- because the recognized exception is when "security" considerations. In these contemporary times, International Law articulates this idea in part as Article 58(a) of Protocol 1.

Article 58 [ Link ] -- Precautions against the effects of attacks

The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:

(a) without prejudice to Article 49 [ Link ] of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;

(b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;

(c) take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.
​

As you can see, there are more reasons to effect the evacuation than not.

The principle purpose of the anti-Israeli movement to continuously bring this type of complaint, is because they want to attempt to convince the reader that there is absolutely on other interpretation, reasoning or law, that can be applied. This is a type of selective hearing, wherein they see only what they want to see; that which is favorable to them --- but, unfavorable to the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R

You missed the fact that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians was the reason for the war.

What ethnic cleansing was that then as the arabs started the violence way back in 1920. The claims of ethnic cleansing are just arab islamonazi propaganda as the only ethnic cleansing taking place is the one instigated by the arab muslims.

 

[Phoenall]

Show one instance of an attack that was not related to colonialism.

You terrorist lovers always get it backwards. The land is ancient Jewish religious and ancestral land. And despite the many invasions, the Jews always maintained a presence and kept coming back over the mellenia. The Arabs are the real invaders and colonialists. The Middle East is littered with countries they invaded, looted, and destroyed.

Battle of Hebron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1834 Hebron massacre occurred in early August 1834,[1] when the forces of Ibrahim Pasha launched an assault against Hebron to crush the last pocket of significant resistance.

Mass killings and rapes by the Egyptian troops took place in Hebron after they captured the city from the rebels. The Jews of Hebron had not participated in the rebellion, but Egyptian soldiers who entered the city ignored this.[13] For three hours, troops committed atrocities against the people of Hebron.[16] The Jews were not subject to Pasha's conscription policy but suffered the "most cruel outrages"[17] and were targeted for "special violence".[18] While many Muslims managed to escape the impending danger, the Jews remained, confident they would not be harmed by the Egyptians. Apparently, the Jews of Jerusalem had received an assurance from Ibrahim that Hebron's Jews would be protected.[19] In the end, seven Jewish men[16][20][21] and five girls[1][16] were killed. Isaac Farhi also described violent attacks on the Jews of Hebron committed by Egyptian soldiers.[22] He writes that the attack in Hebron was even worse than the plunder in Safed. Synagogues were desecrated,[23] houses were ransacked, and valuable items were stolen[24] leaving the Jewish community of Hebron destitute.[25]

A hundred year old attack by Egypt is the best you can do?

Then how about the 1929 massacre of the Jews on the mufti's orders, or the attacks on the Jews during the civil war of 1920 and 1931. And lastly the invasion by arab league troops in 1947 to wipe out the Jews and stop the creation of Israel. The proclamations of the arab leaders spell out why they were invading, and it was only after they put troops in place that they changed their words because the UN warned them it was a breach of the UN charter which they had signed.

Do you mean all of that stuff that happened after the beginning of the colonial project?

What colonial project was that then, as the troubles started as far back as 635 C.E. when mo'mad commanded the muslims to KILL THE JEWS. Is that the colonial project you mean, the one started by the muslims that is still ongoing today.

 

[Phoenall]

They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.

So, you are putting forth the argument that the events in Lydda in 1948 happened outside the context of war and that there was no military value to the town and that not a single military action was taken by any of the residents of the town.

Really? That's what you are going with?

You really need to read your own post.

You really need to learn to stop turning your brain off every time there is an international law that supports the Jews.

The arab muslims instigated military actions in 1921 against the Jews and the British, and the LoN should have stepped then and pushed the arab muslims back into Egypt, Syria and Jordan

 

[P F Tinmore]

They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.

So, you are putting forth the argument that the events in Lydda in 1948 happened outside the context of war and that there was no military value to the town and that not a single military action was taken by any of the residents of the town.

Really? That's what you are going with?

You really need to read your own post.

You really need to learn to stop turning your brain off every time there is an international law that supports the Jews.

The arab muslims instigated military actions in 1921 against the Jews and the British, and the LoN should have stepped then and pushed the arab muslims back into Egypt, Syria and Jordan

The problems began when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket. That was the initial aggression.

 

[Phoenall]

They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.

So, you are putting forth the argument that the events in Lydda in 1948 happened outside the context of war and that there was no military value to the town and that not a single military action was taken by any of the residents of the town.

Really? That's what you are going with?

You really need to read your own post.

You really need to learn to stop turning your brain off every time there is an international law that supports the Jews.

The arab muslims instigated military actions in 1921 against the Jews and the British, and the LoN should have stepped then and pushed the arab muslims back into Egypt, Syria and Jordan

The problems began when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket. That was the initial aggression.

Bullshit the problem began when a mentally deluded psychopath decided to take the wordt parts of Judaism and Christianity and call it islam. Then proceeded to take over the world starting with the Jews who he saw as weak unprotected tribes of wanderers. From then on the islamonazi's have lived the dream of unfettered carnage and mass murder against the Jews and Christians. Even their own people see the filastins as the scum of the scum and want nothing to do with them, which is why they are not allowed the right of return to their nation of birth. They left their own nations and tried to take the land granted to the Jews under INTERNATIONAL LAW away from them because they were stateless travelling farm workers. That was the whole crux of the problems the islamonazi belief that all the world is theirs to own and that the Jews were not protected by islamic law and so where fair game.


IT IS ALL IN THE KORAN AND HADITHS WHICH IS THE ONLY LAW THE MUSLIMS OBEY

 

[yiostheoy]

This Saturday was the 68th Anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre. As no-one's opened a thread about it I thought I would.
"The massacre came in spite of Deir Yassin resident's efforts to maintain positive relations with new Jewish neighbors, including the signing of pact that was approved by Haganah, a main Zionist paramilitary organization during the British Mandate of Palestine." Palestinians mark 68th anniversary of Deir Yassin massacre

I try not to focus on the evil things people have done to each other.

I do remember Sept 11th every Sept 11th however.

I go back to the same bar and grille where I watched the CNN drama unfold that day when our office director closed up and sent us all home immediately.

And on Dec 7th each year I watch my Tora Tora Tora movie again. I remember when that movie first came out back in 1970 how it was such a big deal since it tried to tell the truth about Gen. Short and Adm. Kimmel both asleep at the switch.

Then again on Sept 11th the FBI was asleep at the switch, the Air National Guard was asleep at the switch, and GW Bush got credit for being the Commander Asleep At The Switch In Chief.

Both Dec 7th and Sept 11th were surprise attacks that could have been averted if officials and their rank and file had demonstrated greater vigilance.

But the USA seems to be a reactive society and while there is always time to do things over there is never time to do it right the first time.

Regarding the Israelis, I remember the year 1948 from history. I vaguely remember the 1968 and 1973 wars from memory. I was a kid then and world affairs was not my forte. I do remember when all the Israeli athletes got killed in Munich. What is so hard about having bodyguards when you travel?

 

[Shusha]

The problems began when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket. That was the initial aggression.

In other words:See, whatever happened to the Jews in the past just doesn't matter. Its not important. The Jews were massacred, expelled, ethnically cleansed, invaded, colonized, had their nation destroyed and their Temple razed to the ground (twice). But, meh, who cares? Its just the Jews. They don't really count as a people, anyway.


No, Tinmore, the problems began, and continue, because the Arab Muslim mentality is to view Jewish human rights as "aggression" and to view the Jewish Nakba as irrelevant.

 

[Shusha]

They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.

So, you are putting forth the argument that the events in Lydda in 1948 happened outside the context of war and that there was no military value to the town and that not a single military action was taken by any of the residents of the town.

Really? That's what you are going with?

You really need to read your own post.

You need to start formulating actual arguments to present in the debate. Start with these: Were any of the residents of Lydda combatants as opposed to "innocent civilians"? Was there a military value to holding the village? Did this event happen within the context of war?

Team Palestine, as a whole, really has trouble understanding what "innocent civilian" means.

 

[yiostheoy]

The problems began when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket. That was the initial aggression.

In other words:See, whatever happened to the Jews in the past just doesn't matter. Its not important. The Jews were massacred, expelled, ethnically cleansed, invaded, colonized, had their nation destroyed and their Temple razed to the ground (twice). But, meh, who cares? Its just the Jews. They don't really count as a people, anyway.


No, Tinmore, the problems began, and continue, because the Arab Muslim mentality is to view Jewish human rights as "aggression" and to view the Jewish Nakba as irrelevant.

The Jews are an ancient Babylonian civilization that were not comfortable under Roman conquest.

The Romans apparently were too imposing.

This led to rebellion and war with Rome, which was the beginning of the Jews' major international problem of losing their homeland in the first place.

Then they waited almost 2000 years to claim their homeland back. That was probably forced upon them by the Arab conquest and the scourge of Islam. The Turks were not about to give the land back.

The Jews' first practical opportunity to get back into Judea was around the turmoil of the 1st world war -- The Great War as it was then called. Even then, the Jews did not flock to Palestine (as it was called by then) until after WW2.

The delays were problematic.

Now that the Jews are back in their original homeland that is also problematic.

Naturally the scourge of Islam does not care about their Biblical mythology at all. And the Palestinians do not want to share the land or coexist either.

Solution: a blood feud to the last man, woman, and child.

Problem solved.

 

[yiostheoy]

They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.

So, you are putting forth the argument that the events in Lydda in 1948 happened outside the context of war and that there was no military value to the town and that not a single military action was taken by any of the residents of the town.

Really? That's what you are going with?

You really need to read your own post.

You need to start formulating actual arguments to present in the debate. Start with these: Were any of the residents of Lydda combatants as opposed to "innocent civilians"? Was there a military value to holding the village? Did this event happen within the context of war?

Team Palestine, as a whole, really has trouble understanding what "innocent civilian" means.

Happy now?

 

[Phoenall]

They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.

So, you are putting forth the argument that the events in Lydda in 1948 happened outside the context of war and that there was no military value to the town and that not a single military action was taken by any of the residents of the town.

Really? That's what you are going with?

You really need to read your own post.

You need to start formulating actual arguments to present in the debate. Start with these: Were any of the residents of Lydda combatants as opposed to "innocent civilians"? Was there a military value to holding the village? Did this event happen within the context of war?

Team Palestine, as a whole, really has trouble understanding what "innocent civilian" means.

They have no real argument and so rersort to LIES, PROPAGANDA and BLOOD LIBELS as evidence. The deny the Jews the same human, legal and moral rights that they demand be presented on a golden tray to the arab muslim illegal immigrants. At the first mention of the LoN treaty that made the granting of 22% of palestine to the Jews for their national home they deny that it says this, yet then go on to claim that it gives the arab muslims 78% of palestine for their homeland. They are just JEW HATING NAZI SCUM that have no place in modern society and should be deported to an islamonazi state that agrees with their POV.

 

[Phoenall]

The problems began when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket. That was the initial aggression.

In other words:See, whatever happened to the Jews in the past just doesn't matter. Its not important. The Jews were massacred, expelled, ethnically cleansed, invaded, colonized, had their nation destroyed and their Temple razed to the ground (twice). But, meh, who cares? Its just the Jews. They don't really count as a people, anyway.


No, Tinmore, the problems began, and continue, because the Arab Muslim mentality is to view Jewish human rights as "aggression" and to view the Jewish Nakba as irrelevant.

The Jews are an ancient Babylonian civilization that were not comfortable under Roman conquest.

The Romans apparently were too imposing.

This led to rebellion and war with Rome, which was the beginning of the Jews' major international problem of losing their homeland in the first place.

Then they waited almost 2000 years to claim their homeland back. That was probably forced upon them by the Arab conquest and the scourge of Islam. The Turks were not about to give the land back.

The Jews' first practical opportunity to get back into Judea was around the turmoil of the 1st world war -- The Great War as it was then called. Even then, the Jews did not flock to Palestine (as it was called by then) until after WW2.

The delays were problematic.

Now that the Jews are back in their original homeland that is also problematic.

Naturally the scourge of Islam does not care about their Biblical mythology at all. And the Palestinians do not want to share the land or coexist either.

Solution: a blood feud to the last man, woman, and child.

Problem solved.

Close but you failed to mention that the arab muslims had agreed to allow the Jews live in Israel until they saw how much oil was being sold for, and they thought the whole M.E was sitting on a sea of Oil.