All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss 2

[Sixties Fan]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

You are the same as a Holocaust denier

Christians and Muslims who have cheered and participated in the systematic murders of over 6 Million Jews, many of them are Holocaust deniers.

The Arabs keep trying to equate Israel defending itself with a holocaust which has never happened between Jews and Arabs in the Mandate for Palestine from 1920 to 1948.

On the other hand, the Palestinian Leader Al Husseini, took the bother to go all the way to Iraq, incite the Iraqis and provoke a massacre of Jews there in June of 1941.

Why? What did Jews in Iraq have to do with the Mandate for Palestine? Why only Iraq?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

Do you know why the Arabs chose to follow the orders of their leaders to leave?

It was because in 1929, in Hebron, the Arabs mercilessly attacked, raped, dismembered and murdered many Jews in that city without any provocation from those Jews in that city.
The rest of the Jewish population was later expelled by the British to not "upset" the Arabs any more than they already were.

So, in 1948, when the Arab States were ready to invade Israel to destroy the newly Independent State....ONE day after its independence .........many Arabs thought that if they stayed around, the Jews would behave the way they were taught to behave towards the Jews. So, the Arabs in the South fled to Gaza.

The ones in the North stayed because the Israelis asked them to stay. And their descendants continue to live there to this day.

Arabs attack, murder, expel.

1920 Gaza
1921 Jerusalem
1925 TranJordan
1929 Hebron
1948 Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, today known as "East" Jerusalem

Jews invite Arabs and Christians to live together, as they do to this day in Israel, with rights they did not have and will not have in any Arab/Muslim State or territory.

-------------------------
And now, for Stuart's newest memorex moment

Indeed, Morris could go back a decade prior, within this exercise of trying to pinpoint responsibility for the initiation of such tit-for-tat violence, and point to the 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron; or, further, to May 1921, when Arab mobs murdered Jews in Jaffa; or further still, to April 1920, when Arab rioters killed five Jews in Jerusalem.

There is no dispute that these earlier incidences of violence were initiated by Arabs. But the question remains of why they occurred. Did these murderous attacks reflect an inherent hatred of Jews among the Arab population? Or is there some other context that the debate Morris has had with his critics is still missing

 

[Sixties Fan]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

Do you know why the Arabs chose to follow the orders of their leaders to leave?

It was because in 1929, in Hebron, the Arabs mercilessly attacked, raped, dismembered and murdered many Jews in that city without any provocation from those Jews in that city.
The rest of the Jewish population was later expelled by the British to not "upset" the Arabs any more than they already were.

So, in 1948, when the Arab States were ready to invade Israel to destroy the newly Independent State....ONE day after its independence .........many Arabs thought that if they stayed around, the Jews would behave the way they were taught to behave towards the Jews. So, the Arabs in the South fled to Gaza.

The ones in the North stayed because the Israelis asked them to stay. And their descendants continue to live there to this day.

Arabs attack, murder, expel.

1920 Gaza
1921 Jerusalem
1925 TranJordan
1929 Hebron
1948 Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, today known as "East" Jerusalem

Jews invite Arabs and Christians to live together, as they do to this day in Israel, with rights they did not have and will not have in any Arab/Muslim State or territory.

-------------------------
And now, for Stuart's newest memorex moment

With regard to Morris’s denial that what occurred fits the definition of “ethnic cleansing”, Blatman quotes the prosecutor in the trial of Radovan Karadzic, a Bosnian-Serb leader convicted for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia:

In ethnic cleansing . . . you act in such a way that in a given territory, the members of a given ethnic group are eliminated. . . . You have massacres. Everybody is not massacred, but you have massacres in order to scare those populations. . . . Naturally, the other people are driven away. They are afraid . . . and, of course, in the end these people simply want to leave. . . . They are driven away either on their own initiative or they are deported. . . . Some women are raped and, furthermore, often times what you have is the destruction of the monuments which marked the presence of a given population . . . for instance, Catholic churches or mosques are destroyed

Perfect example as to what happened to the Jewish Population of the Mandate for Palestine to re create their Nation on Their homeland.

But you want to allege that the Jewish Army or any Jewish civilian went around raping, etc, etc, when none of that happened.

You use another war's example to smear the Jews, again, because the Jews behaving like the Arabs, never happened.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

Some are not. Most are?

You cannot answer my post. As usual.

You are using the ten commandments for toilet paper

Memorex

Never again

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

Do you know why the Arabs chose to follow the orders of their leaders to leave?

It was because in 1929, in Hebron, the Arabs mercilessly attacked, raped, dismembered and murdered many Jews in that city without any provocation from those Jews in that city.
The rest of the Jewish population was later expelled by the British to not "upset" the Arabs any more than they already were.

So, in 1948, when the Arab States were ready to invade Israel to destroy the newly Independent State....ONE day after its independence .........many Arabs thought that if they stayed around, the Jews would behave the way they were taught to behave towards the Jews. So, the Arabs in the South fled to Gaza.

The ones in the North stayed because the Israelis asked them to stay. And their descendants continue to live there to this day.

Arabs attack, murder, expel.

1920 Gaza
1921 Jerusalem
1925 TranJordan
1929 Hebron
1948 Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, today known as "East" Jerusalem

Jews invite Arabs and Christians to live together, as they do to this day in Israel, with rights they did not have and will not have in any Arab/Muslim State or territory.

-------------------------
And now, for Stuart's newest memorex moment

With regard to Morris’s denial that what occurred fits the definition of “ethnic cleansing”, Blatman quotes the prosecutor in the trial of Radovan Karadzic, a Bosnian-Serb leader convicted for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia:

In ethnic cleansing . . . you act in such a way that in a given territory, the members of a given ethnic group are eliminated. . . . You have massacres. Everybody is not massacred, but you have massacres in order to scare those populations. . . . Naturally, the other people are driven away. They are afraid . . . and, of course, in the end these people simply want to leave. . . . They are driven away either on their own initiative or they are deported. . . . Some women are raped and, furthermore, often times what you have is the destruction of the monuments which marked the presence of a given population . . . for instance, Catholic churches or mosques are destroyed

Perfect example as to what happened to the Jewish Population of the Mandate for Palestine to re create their Nation on Their homeland.

But you want to allege that the Jewish Army or any Jewish civilian went around raping, etc, etc, when none of that happened.

You use another war's example to smear the Jews, again, because the Jews behaving like the Arabs, never happened.

Another aspect of the Zionists’ land purchases was how it disenfranchised Arab inhabitants who had theretofore been living on and working the land. This was achieved by exploiting feudalistic Ottoman land laws. Under the Ottoman Land Code of 1858, the state effectively claimed ownership of the land and individuals were regarded as tenants. Subsequently, the law was amended so individuals could register for a title-deed to the land, but landholders often saw no need to do so unless they were interested in selling. Moreover, there were incentives not to register, including the desire to avoid granting legitimacy to the Ottoman government, to avoid paying registration fees and taxes, and to evade possible military conscription. Additionally, land lived on and cultivated by one individual or family was often registered in the name of another, such as local government magnates who registered large plots or even entire villages in their own names.[50] The British Shaw Commission report of 1929 described another common means by which the rightful owners of the land were legally disenfranchised:

Under the Turkish regime, especially in the latter half of the eighteenth century, persons of the peasant classes in some parts of the Ottoman Empire, including the territory now known as Palestine, found that by admitting the over-lordship of the Sultan or of some member of the Turkish aristocracy, they could obtain protection against extortion and other material benefits which counterbalanced the tribune demanded by their over-lord as a return for his protection. Accordingly many peasant cultivators at that time either willingly entered into an arrangement of this character or, finding that it was imposed upon them, submitted to it. By these means persons of importance and position in the Ottoman Empire acquired the legal title to large tracts of land which for generations and in some cases for centuries had been in the undisturbed and undisputed occupation of peasants who . . . had undoubtedly a strong moral claim to be allowed to continue in occupation of those lands.[51]

Much of the land acquired by the JNF was purchased from absentee landlords, with extreme prejudice toward the poor Arab inhabitants who by rights were its legitimate owners.[52] According to the Shaw Commission, no more than 10 percent of purchased land was acquired from peasants, the rest having been “acquired from the owners of large estates most of whom live outside Palestine”.[53] In the Vale of Esdraelon, for instance, “one of the most fertile parts of Palestine”, Jews purchased 200,000 dunams (more than 49,000 acres) from a wealthy family of Christian Arabs from Beirut (the Sursock family). Included in the purchase were 22 villages, “the tenants of which, with the exception of a single village, were displaced: 1,746 families or 8,730 people.”[54] As another example, in the Wadi el Hawareth area, the JNF purchased 30,826 dunams (more than 7,600 acres) and evicted a large proportion its 1,200 Arab inhabitants.[55

 

[Sixties Fan]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

Do you know why the Arabs chose to follow the orders of their leaders to leave?

It was because in 1929, in Hebron, the Arabs mercilessly attacked, raped, dismembered and murdered many Jews in that city without any provocation from those Jews in that city.
The rest of the Jewish population was later expelled by the British to not "upset" the Arabs any more than they already were.

So, in 1948, when the Arab States were ready to invade Israel to destroy the newly Independent State....ONE day after its independence .........many Arabs thought that if they stayed around, the Jews would behave the way they were taught to behave towards the Jews. So, the Arabs in the South fled to Gaza.

The ones in the North stayed because the Israelis asked them to stay. And their descendants continue to live there to this day.

Arabs attack, murder, expel.

1920 Gaza
1921 Jerusalem
1925 TranJordan
1929 Hebron
1948 Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, today known as "East" Jerusalem

Jews invite Arabs and Christians to live together, as they do to this day in Israel, with rights they did not have and will not have in any Arab/Muslim State or territory.

-------------------------
And now, for Stuart's newest memorex moment

Indeed, Morris could go back a decade prior, within this exercise of trying to pinpoint responsibility for the initiation of such tit-for-tat violence, and point to the 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron; or, further, to May 1921, when Arab mobs murdered Jews in Jaffa; or further still, to April 1920, when Arab rioters killed five Jews in Jerusalem.

There is no dispute that these earlier incidences of violence were initiated by Arabs. But the question remains of why they occurred. Did these murderous attacks reflect an inherent hatred of Jews among the Arab population? Or is there some other context that the debate Morris has had with his critics is still missing

It is the Jews. It is always the Jew's fault.

They are responsible for the Pogroms on them in Europe. Just look at their behavior, their clothes, everything.

They are responsible for the Inquisition, WWI, WWII.
They brought the Holocaust upon themselves.

The Jews get what they deserve

 

[Sixties Fan]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

Do you know why the Arabs chose to follow the orders of their leaders to leave?

It was because in 1929, in Hebron, the Arabs mercilessly attacked, raped, dismembered and murdered many Jews in that city without any provocation from those Jews in that city.
The rest of the Jewish population was later expelled by the British to not "upset" the Arabs any more than they already were.

So, in 1948, when the Arab States were ready to invade Israel to destroy the newly Independent State....ONE day after its independence .........many Arabs thought that if they stayed around, the Jews would behave the way they were taught to behave towards the Jews. So, the Arabs in the South fled to Gaza.

The ones in the North stayed because the Israelis asked them to stay. And their descendants continue to live there to this day.

Arabs attack, murder, expel.

1920 Gaza
1921 Jerusalem
1925 TranJordan
1929 Hebron
1948 Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, today known as "East" Jerusalem

Jews invite Arabs and Christians to live together, as they do to this day in Israel, with rights they did not have and will not have in any Arab/Muslim State or territory.

-------------------------
And now, for Stuart's newest memorex moment

Included among the Haganah’s “mistakes” was an attack on December 18, 1947, on the village of Khisas. Carried out with the approval of Yigal Allon, the commander of the Palmach (an elite unit within the Jewish army), Zionist forces invaded the village and indiscriminately murdered seven men, a woman, and four children. Morris describes this as a “reprisal” for the murder of a Jewish cart driver earlier that day, even though, as he superfluously notes, “None of the dead appear to have been involved in the death of the cart driver.”[21]

Another of the Haganah’s “mistakes” occurred on the night of January 5, 1948, when Zionist forces entered the West Jerusalem neighborhood of Katamon and bombed the Semiramis Hotel, killing twenty-six civilians, including a government official from Spain. “The explosion triggered the start of a ‘panic exodus’ from the prosperous Arab neighborhood.” The British were furious, and Ben-Gurion subsequently removed the officer responsible from command.[22]

And never a link

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

Do you know why the Arabs chose to follow the orders of their leaders to leave?

It was because in 1929, in Hebron, the Arabs mercilessly attacked, raped, dismembered and murdered many Jews in that city without any provocation from those Jews in that city.
The rest of the Jewish population was later expelled by the British to not "upset" the Arabs any more than they already were.

So, in 1948, when the Arab States were ready to invade Israel to destroy the newly Independent State....ONE day after its independence .........many Arabs thought that if they stayed around, the Jews would behave the way they were taught to behave towards the Jews. So, the Arabs in the South fled to Gaza.

The ones in the North stayed because the Israelis asked them to stay. And their descendants continue to live there to this day.

Arabs attack, murder, expel.

1920 Gaza
1921 Jerusalem
1925 TranJordan
1929 Hebron
1948 Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, today known as "East" Jerusalem

Jews invite Arabs and Christians to live together, as they do to this day in Israel, with rights they did not have and will not have in any Arab/Muslim State or territory.

-------------------------
And now, for Stuart's newest memorex moment

The land that we have bought (for the colony of Ghederal constitutes the "soul and spirit" (nefesh vi ruah)
of the [Arab] village [of Qatra]. The villagers borrowed from the French moneylender Polivar at such a
high rate that they were finally compelled to sell their lands at the loanshark's price. As long as Polivar
remained owner of the land, the fel laheen did not feel the full burden of their misfortune because he leased
it to them. But now that the fellaheen realize that our [Jewish] brothers work the land on their own, and will
not lease it ... the fellaheen are bare-how will they come by their daily bread? [15 November 1885, Muyal
to Pinsker, in Druyanov 1919,1:670-71]
The Ottoman fiscal and land reforms (of the second phase of tanzimat), which first took
effect in Palestine around 1870, soon resulted in the peasantry losing title to much of the land
they cultivated (Schumacher 1889; Post 1891). But life conditions hardly deteriorated: improved
physical security and opportunities provided by the emerging agricultural market more than
offset the cost of paying rent to absentee titleholders (Scholch 1984; Gilbar 1986; cf. Oliphant
1887). Then came the Jewish colonists. Exchanging meager savings for precious deeds in Zion,
they had left behind the alienating commerce of pogrom-ridden Eastern Europe to work the land
of Abraham and Isaac for themselves: "that is why, all of a sudden, many fellaheen had no land
to till; this affected their very existence and provoked the conflicts [at Petah Tikvah] that set our
(Arab] brothers against us" (4 April 1886, Hirsch to Pinsker, in Druyanov 1919,1:746-54, 761-
65). Many of these early colonists were genuinely surprised to find the children of Abraham's
half-forgotten son, Ishmael, still dwelling on their father's land. A few saw the Arabs as long-lost
brothers. Others dreamed the Arabs could be forced back to their desert banishment. The Arab
peasants, it appears, were similarly disconcerted.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

Do you know why the Arabs chose to follow the orders of their leaders to leave?

It was because in 1929, in Hebron, the Arabs mercilessly attacked, raped, dismembered and murdered many Jews in that city without any provocation from those Jews in that city.
The rest of the Jewish population was later expelled by the British to not "upset" the Arabs any more than they already were.

So, in 1948, when the Arab States were ready to invade Israel to destroy the newly Independent State....ONE day after its independence .........many Arabs thought that if they stayed around, the Jews would behave the way they were taught to behave towards the Jews. So, the Arabs in the South fled to Gaza.

The ones in the North stayed because the Israelis asked them to stay. And their descendants continue to live there to this day.

Arabs attack, murder, expel.

1920 Gaza
1921 Jerusalem
1925 TranJordan
1929 Hebron
1948 Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, today known as "East" Jerusalem

Jews invite Arabs and Christians to live together, as they do to this day in Israel, with rights they did not have and will not have in any Arab/Muslim State or territory.

-------------------------
And now, for Stuart's newest memorex moment

Included among the Haganah’s “mistakes” was an attack on December 18, 1947, on the village of Khisas. Carried out with the approval of Yigal Allon, the commander of the Palmach (an elite unit within the Jewish army), Zionist forces invaded the village and indiscriminately murdered seven men, a woman, and four children. Morris describes this as a “reprisal” for the murder of a Jewish cart driver earlier that day, even though, as he superfluously notes, “None of the dead appear to have been involved in the death of the cart driver.”[21]

Another of the Haganah’s “mistakes” occurred on the night of January 5, 1948, when Zionist forces entered the West Jerusalem neighborhood of Katamon and bombed the Semiramis Hotel, killing twenty-six civilians, including a government official from Spain. “The explosion triggered the start of a ‘panic exodus’ from the prosperous Arab neighborhood.” The British were furious, and Ben-Gurion subsequently removed the officer responsible from command.[22]

And never a link

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

Do you know why the Arabs chose to follow the orders of their leaders to leave?

It was because in 1929, in Hebron, the Arabs mercilessly attacked, raped, dismembered and murdered many Jews in that city without any provocation from those Jews in that city.
The rest of the Jewish population was later expelled by the British to not "upset" the Arabs any more than they already were.

So, in 1948, when the Arab States were ready to invade Israel to destroy the newly Independent State....ONE day after its independence .........many Arabs thought that if they stayed around, the Jews would behave the way they were taught to behave towards the Jews. So, the Arabs in the South fled to Gaza.

The ones in the North stayed because the Israelis asked them to stay. And their descendants continue to live there to this day.

Arabs attack, murder, expel.

1920 Gaza
1921 Jerusalem
1925 TranJordan
1929 Hebron
1948 Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, today known as "East" Jerusalem

Jews invite Arabs and Christians to live together, as they do to this day in Israel, with rights they did not have and will not have in any Arab/Muslim State or territory.

-------------------------
And now, for Stuart's newest memorex moment

Included among the Haganah’s “mistakes” was an attack on December 18, 1947, on the village of Khisas. Carried out with the approval of Yigal Allon, the commander of the Palmach (an elite unit within the Jewish army), Zionist forces invaded the village and indiscriminately murdered seven men, a woman, and four children. Morris describes this as a “reprisal” for the murder of a Jewish cart driver earlier that day, even though, as he superfluously notes, “None of the dead appear to have been involved in the death of the cart driver.”[21]

Another of the Haganah’s “mistakes” occurred on the night of January 5, 1948, when Zionist forces entered the West Jerusalem neighborhood of Katamon and bombed the Semiramis Hotel, killing twenty-six civilians, including a government official from Spain. “The explosion triggered the start of a ‘panic exodus’ from the prosperous Arab neighborhood.” The British were furious, and Ben-Gurion subsequently removed the officer responsible from command.[22]

And never a link

https://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00000568/document

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

Do you know why the Arabs chose to follow the orders of their leaders to leave?

It was because in 1929, in Hebron, the Arabs mercilessly attacked, raped, dismembered and murdered many Jews in that city without any provocation from those Jews in that city.
The rest of the Jewish population was later expelled by the British to not "upset" the Arabs any more than they already were.

So, in 1948, when the Arab States were ready to invade Israel to destroy the newly Independent State....ONE day after its independence .........many Arabs thought that if they stayed around, the Jews would behave the way they were taught to behave towards the Jews. So, the Arabs in the South fled to Gaza.

The ones in the North stayed because the Israelis asked them to stay. And their descendants continue to live there to this day.

Arabs attack, murder, expel.

1920 Gaza
1921 Jerusalem
1925 TranJordan
1929 Hebron
1948 Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, today known as "East" Jerusalem

Jews invite Arabs and Christians to live together, as they do to this day in Israel, with rights they did not have and will not have in any Arab/Muslim State or territory.

-------------------------
And now, for Stuart's newest memorex moment

Included among the Haganah’s “mistakes” was an attack on December 18, 1947, on the village of Khisas. Carried out with the approval of Yigal Allon, the commander of the Palmach (an elite unit within the Jewish army), Zionist forces invaded the village and indiscriminately murdered seven men, a woman, and four children. Morris describes this as a “reprisal” for the murder of a Jewish cart driver earlier that day, even though, as he superfluously notes, “None of the dead appear to have been involved in the death of the cart driver.”[21]

Another of the Haganah’s “mistakes” occurred on the night of January 5, 1948, when Zionist forces entered the West Jerusalem neighborhood of Katamon and bombed the Semiramis Hotel, killing twenty-six civilians, including a government official from Spain. “The explosion triggered the start of a ‘panic exodus’ from the prosperous Arab neighborhood.” The British were furious, and Ben-Gurion subsequently removed the officer responsible from command.[22]

And never a link

Rape, massacre, transfer

Q: Benny Morris, in the month ahead the new version of your book on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem is due to be published. Who will be less pleased with the book - the Israelis or the Palestinians?

Morris: The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.

At the same time, it turns out that there was a series of orders issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the villages. So that on the one hand, the book reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side, but on the other hand it also proves that many of those who left the villages did so with the encouragement of the Palestinian leadership itself.

According to your new findings, how many cases of Israeli rape were there in 1948?

About a dozen. In Acre four soldiers raped a girl and murdered her and her father. In Jaffa, soldiers of the Kiryati Brigade raped one girl and tried to rape several more. At Hunin, which is in the Galilee, two girls were raped and then murdered. There were one or two cases of rape at Tantura, south of Haifa. There was one case of rape at Qula, in the center of the country. At the village of Abu Shusha, near Kibbutz Gezer [in the Ramle area] there were four female prisoners, one of whom was raped a number of times. And there were other cases. Usually more than one soldier was involved. Usually there were one or two Palestinian girls. In a large proportion of the cases the event ended with murder. Because neither the victims nor the rapists liked to report these events, we have to assume that the dozen cases of rape that were reported, which I found, are not the whole story. They are just the tip of the iceberg

ARI SHAVIT - SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST? AN INTERVIEW WITH BENNY MORRIS: LOGOS WINTER 2004

This interview first appeared in Haaretz.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

According to your new findings, how many cases of Israeli rape were there in 1948?

About a dozen. In Acre four soldiers raped a girl and murdered her and her father. In Jaffa, soldiers of the Kiryati Brigade raped one girl and tried to rape several more. At Hunin, which is in the Galilee, two girls were raped and then murdered. There were one or two cases of rape at Tantura, south of Haifa. There was one case of rape at Qula, in the center of the country. At the village of Abu Shusha, near Kibbutz Gezer [in the Ramle area] there were four female prisoners, one of whom was raped a number of times. And there were other cases. Usually more than one soldier was involved. Usually there were one or two Palestinian girls. In a large proportion of the cases the event ended with murder. Because neither the victims nor the rapists liked to report these events, we have to assume that the dozen cases of rape that were reported, which I found, are not the whole story. They are just the tip of the iceberg

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

Do you know why the Arabs chose to follow the orders of their leaders to leave?

It was because in 1929, in Hebron, the Arabs mercilessly attacked, raped, dismembered and murdered many Jews in that city without any provocation from those Jews in that city.
The rest of the Jewish population was later expelled by the British to not "upset" the Arabs any more than they already were.

So, in 1948, when the Arab States were ready to invade Israel to destroy the newly Independent State....ONE day after its independence .........many Arabs thought that if they stayed around, the Jews would behave the way they were taught to behave towards the Jews. So, the Arabs in the South fled to Gaza.

The ones in the North stayed because the Israelis asked them to stay. And their descendants continue to live there to this day.

Arabs attack, murder, expel.

1920 Gaza
1921 Jerusalem
1925 TranJordan
1929 Hebron
1948 Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, today known as "East" Jerusalem

Jews invite Arabs and Christians to live together, as they do to this day in Israel, with rights they did not have and will not have in any Arab/Muslim State or territory.

-------------------------
And now, for Stuart's newest memorex moment

Included among the Haganah’s “mistakes” was an attack on December 18, 1947, on the village of Khisas. Carried out with the approval of Yigal Allon, the commander of the Palmach (an elite unit within the Jewish army), Zionist forces invaded the village and indiscriminately murdered seven men, a woman, and four children. Morris describes this as a “reprisal” for the murder of a Jewish cart driver earlier that day, even though, as he superfluously notes, “None of the dead appear to have been involved in the death of the cart driver.”[21]

Another of the Haganah’s “mistakes” occurred on the night of January 5, 1948, when Zionist forces entered the West Jerusalem neighborhood of Katamon and bombed the Semiramis Hotel, killing twenty-six civilians, including a government official from Spain. “The explosion triggered the start of a ‘panic exodus’ from the prosperous Arab neighborhood.” The British were furious, and Ben-Gurion subsequently removed the officer responsible from command.[22]

And never a link

According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were perpetrated in 1948?

Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.

The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

That can’t be chance. It’s a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

Do you know why the Arabs chose to follow the orders of their leaders to leave?

It was because in 1929, in Hebron, the Arabs mercilessly attacked, raped, dismembered and murdered many Jews in that city without any provocation from those Jews in that city.
The rest of the Jewish population was later expelled by the British to not "upset" the Arabs any more than they already were.

So, in 1948, when the Arab States were ready to invade Israel to destroy the newly Independent State....ONE day after its independence .........many Arabs thought that if they stayed around, the Jews would behave the way they were taught to behave towards the Jews. So, the Arabs in the South fled to Gaza.

The ones in the North stayed because the Israelis asked them to stay. And their descendants continue to live there to this day.

Arabs attack, murder, expel.

1920 Gaza
1921 Jerusalem
1925 TranJordan
1929 Hebron
1948 Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, today known as "East" Jerusalem

Jews invite Arabs and Christians to live together, as they do to this day in Israel, with rights they did not have and will not have in any Arab/Muslim State or territory.

-------------------------
And now, for Stuart's newest memorex moment

Included among the Haganah’s “mistakes” was an attack on December 18, 1947, on the village of Khisas. Carried out with the approval of Yigal Allon, the commander of the Palmach (an elite unit within the Jewish army), Zionist forces invaded the village and indiscriminately murdered seven men, a woman, and four children. Morris describes this as a “reprisal” for the murder of a Jewish cart driver earlier that day, even though, as he superfluously notes, “None of the dead appear to have been involved in the death of the cart driver.”[21]

Another of the Haganah’s “mistakes” occurred on the night of January 5, 1948, when Zionist forces entered the West Jerusalem neighborhood of Katamon and bombed the Semiramis Hotel, killing twenty-six civilians, including a government official from Spain. “The explosion triggered the start of a ‘panic exodus’ from the prosperous Arab neighborhood.” The British were furious, and Ben-Gurion subsequently removed the officer responsible from command.[22]

And never a link

About Logos
Founded in 2002 in New York, Logos is a quarterly journal of modern culture, politics and society that features articles on politics, culture, the arts, social sciences and humanities. We publish original essays that seek to cultivate critical consciousness and a more democratic society

http://logosjournal.com/about/

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Mr. Troy is Professor of History at McGill University and the author, most recently, of Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. He is a member of HNN's Advisory Board.

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.
Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

(full article online)

On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign...

hnn.us

You forgot to answer the question, or I didn't see your answer: do you consider all Muslims to be predatory beasts? Most? A large percent?

A nice gotcha question.

Answer: Throughout the History of Christianity and Islam there have been those who have not accepted the idea that Jews are inferior and must pay for "killing Jesus", not accepting Allah, or any conspiracy theory invented by either religion to demean and mistreat any and all Jews.

Those have mostly been in the minority and not in Government roles where they could treat the Jewish people and religion with respect.

------------
Question:

Do you not find the endless education in Islam (and in Christianity) that Jews are guilty of this and that .....and that too.....(Check the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by Russian Christians and promoted all over the Muslim world, and avidly read by Hitler himself) capable of turning the minds of many Christians and Muslims to the point where throughout these religions history, members of each have incited and been participant in attacks, massacres, rapes, beheadings, expulsions, murders, in the name of Jesus or Allah?


Is that not the behavior of savages, of beasts who are incapable of stopping and realizing what they are doing and why......and in the end have always felt very proud of themselves for putting the Jews in their place by either humiliating them, stealing from them, expelling them, killing them.

Pogroms
The Inquisition which lasted centuries
More Pogroms

And when the Jews legally gain the right to re create their Nation on THEIR ancient homeland

THE FINAL SOLUTION

All Jews must be killed
--------------------

No, absolutely not. Some Muslims and Christians are not "predatory beasts.

They are MURDERERS, who have usually gotten away with it....because the victims were Jewish

The zionists did a pogrom to the palis. Those zionists are predatory beasts?

What pogrom. Make sense.

Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

I am not seeing a date and place which would show the zionists committing a pogrom on the Arabs.

But then, you do not want me to find out that it was in the middle of the wars, 1936-1939, or 1948, and that Jews had to defend themselves or be killed.

Oh, no. no, no. Let Stuart not show any details of the alleged pogroms.

Blatman quotes from Morris’s book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949:

The attacks of the Haganah and the Israel Defense Forces, expulsion orders, the fear of attacks and acts of cruelty on the part of the Jews, the absence of assistance from the Arab world and the Arab Higher Committee, the sense of helplessness and abandonment, orders by Arab institutions and commanders to leave and evacuate, in most cases was the direct and decisive reason for the flight—an attack by the Haganah, Irgun, Lehi or the IDF, or the inhabitants’ fear of such an attack

Do you know why the Arabs chose to follow the orders of their leaders to leave?

It was because in 1929, in Hebron, the Arabs mercilessly attacked, raped, dismembered and murdered many Jews in that city without any provocation from those Jews in that city.
The rest of the Jewish population was later expelled by the British to not "upset" the Arabs any more than they already were.

So, in 1948, when the Arab States were ready to invade Israel to destroy the newly Independent State....ONE day after its independence .........many Arabs thought that if they stayed around, the Jews would behave the way they were taught to behave towards the Jews. So, the Arabs in the South fled to Gaza.

The ones in the North stayed because the Israelis asked them to stay. And their descendants continue to live there to this day.

Arabs attack, murder, expel.

1920 Gaza
1921 Jerusalem
1925 TranJordan
1929 Hebron
1948 Judea, Samaria and the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, today known as "East" Jerusalem

Jews invite Arabs and Christians to live together, as they do to this day in Israel, with rights they did not have and will not have in any Arab/Muslim State or territory.

-------------------------
And now, for Stuart's newest memorex moment

Indeed, Morris could go back a decade prior, within this exercise of trying to pinpoint responsibility for the initiation of such tit-for-tat violence, and point to the 1929 massacre of Jews in Hebron; or, further, to May 1921, when Arab mobs murdered Jews in Jaffa; or further still, to April 1920, when Arab rioters killed five Jews in Jerusalem.

There is no dispute that these earlier incidences of violence were initiated by Arabs. But the question remains of why they occurred. Did these murderous attacks reflect an inherent hatred of Jews among the Arab population? Or is there some other context that the debate Morris has had with his critics is still missing

It is the Jews. It is always the Jew's fault.

They are responsible for the Pogroms on them in Europe. Just look at their behavior, their clothes, everything.

They are responsible for the Inquisition, WWI, WWII.
They brought the Holocaust upon themselves.

The Jews get what they deserve

I'm Jewish, but I converted to Christianity.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Benny morris is a Jewish zionist and conflicted

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

I'm a zionist in the sense that I believe the truth will help Israel, not hurt it.

 

[Coyote]

This thread is very long and old, a bit hard to define the topic but what It isn’t Is a rehash old history. Let’s please put that elsewhere (we have some pinned threads) and get back to more current events.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Over the past two years, Scientific Americanhas published a series of biased attacks on Israel, even accusing Israel of “vaccine apartheid and medical apartheid.” Such actions are not surprising considering that in 2021, a Senior Editor at Scientific American tweeted that “Israel is an apartheid state and Zionism is white supremacy. #FreePalestine.”

As I wrote last week in The Algemeiner, a June 2, 2021, column — titled “As Health Care Workers, We Stand in Solidarity with Palestine” — was removed from the Scientific American website just hours after the publisher received a letter signed by more than 106 scientists and physicians, including three Nobel Laureates.


THE LETTER CRITICIZED SCIENTIFIC AMERICANEDITORS FOR PUBLISHING “ONE-SIDED POLITICAL PROPAGANDA,” IGNORING “EASILY VERIFIED FACTS,” AND COVERING “IMPORTANT HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL ISSUES SUPERFICIALLY, INACCURATELY, AND PREJUDICIALLY.” A FULL TEXT OF THE NOW REMOVED COLUMN IS AVAILABLE HERE.

(full article online)

‘Scientific American’: A Publishing Home for Anti-Israel Hate and Propaganda

A teenager receives a dose of a vaccine against the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) after Israel approved the usage of the …

www.algemeiner.com

NEWSLETTER

COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Israel: Successes, lessons, and caveats
Israel is a world leader in the race to roll out the COVID-19 vaccine. In this Special Feature, Medical News Today look at why the vaccine rollout has been so successful in Israel and discuss the controversies and equity issues related to the campaign.

EMMANUEL DUNAND/Getty Images
All data and statistics are based on publicly available data at the time of publication. Some information may be out of date. Visit our coronavirus hub and follow our live updates page for the most recent information on the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the United States has struggled to meet COVID-19 vaccine rollout goals, within just 2 weeks, Israel vaccinated almost 15% of the country’s population of more than 9 million.

As of January 19, 2021, 25.6% of the Israeli population have received their first vaccine dose, and 550,000 people have received both doses.

To give some perspective, Israel is vaccinating residents at a rate of 32.4 people per 100, compared with 4.8 people per 100 in the U.S., and 7 per 100 in the United Kingdom.

But why exactly has the rollout been so successful in Israel? And what can we learn from this early success? In this Special Feature, we review what is known about Israel’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

Stay informed with live updates on the current COVID-19 outbreak and visit our coronavirus hub for more advice on prevention and treatment.

Early rollout successes
Israel’s success in rolling out the COVID-19 vaccine seems to be due to several factors influencing the access to and distribution of the vaccine.

The Israeli government started searching early on for a way to secure vaccine doses.

In June 2020, Israel became one of the first countries to sign a purchase agreement for a vaccine supply from Moderna. In November, the country announced additional vaccine deals with AstraZeneca and Pfizer.

The first Pfizer vaccine doses arrived in Israel on December 9, 2020, and vaccinations began on December 19, 2020. The country is still waiting for the other two vaccines.

Israel’s government also allegedly agreed to pay top dollar for vaccines and purchase millions of doses. Although the exact price is unknown, one official said that the price was about $30 per vaccine — double the average price abroad.

The makers of the vaccine that Israel is currently using — U.S. company Pfizer and German partner BioNTech — would not comment on the cost of the vaccine.

In exchange for an early, steady vaccine supply, the Israeli government also assured Pfizer that the country’s rollout would offer quick, large-scale results, promising to give the company detailed patient information on those receiving the vaccine in Israel.

Israeli officials expected Israel’s vaccine rollout to be successful because the country is small but has a vast healthcare infrastructure. The country also has a well-developed, universal healthcare system that connects all residents to a national digital health network.

All residents also have insurance from semi-private healthcare maintenance organizations (HMOs) that run services throughout the country, even in rural, remote regions.

Israel’s centralized, digitized system makes it easier to track and access information and roll out national healthcare agendas, such as vaccination campaigns.

“In a sense, Israel has become like a very large clinical trial,” Hadassah Medical Center virologist Dr. Rivka Abulafia-Lapid told The Times of Israel.

“Because everyone in Israel belongs to an HMO, and their records are kept along with their background data, this means we’ll get a good picture of responsiveness to the vaccine, in context of age, gender, and existing medical conditions,” Dr. Abulafia-Lapid added.


Distribution successes
Israel’s vaccine rollout success is also due in part to the handling of the vaccine and its delivery to citizens.

Those responsible for logistics have stored the vaccine doses underground near Israel’s main airport. They are in 30 large freezers, which are capable of holding 5 million doses.

Teams in Israel have also developed a way to repack doses from large, ultra-frozen pallets into insulated boxes roughly the size of a pizza box. Doing this has made it easier to distribute vaccine doses in smaller numbers and to remote sites.

Teams repack large vaccine pallets into bundles containing as few as 100 doses, which they then deliver to 400 vaccination centers. Healthcare professionals have also managed to obtain more vaccine doses out of each vial than Pfizer had initially advertised.

Pfizer have approved both of these processes.

Some 335 drive-through vaccination clinics also exist throughout Israel, allowing healthcare professionals to vaccinate larger groups of people quickly. On January 19, 2021, the country announced a new daily record of more than 210,000 vaccinations in 1 day.

Israel began vaccinating healthcare workers, teachers, people with medical conditions, and those over the age of 60 years. Now, the country is racing to vaccinate the entire population over the age of 16 years — equating to about 5.2 million people — by the end of March. As of January 20, Israel has started vaccinating residents over the age of 40 years.

At the time of writing, Israel has given at least one dose of the vaccine to more than 76% of the country’s inhabitants who work as teachers, are over the age of 60 years, or have health risks.


ADVERTISING

CORONAVIRUS NEWS
Stay informed about COVID-19
Get the latest updates and research-backed information on the novel coronavirus direct to your inbox.

Enter your email
Your privacy is important to us

Controversies
Despite these achievements, some people in Israel are regularly demonstrating against the government’s handling of the pandemic.

Hailed as a way to restore normalcy — and save the economy — the government calls the COVID-19 vaccine rollout “Operation Back to Life.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims that it will allow Israel to become the first country in the world to emerge from the pandemic.

However, it is less clear precisely how and when Israel will be able to revert to so-called normal life.

On January 19, the country reported a record high of more than 10,000 new cases of COVID-19 in a single day and a positivity rate above 10% for the first time in 3 months. Also, 30–40% of new cases are linked to the new COVID-19 variant that scientists first recognized in the U.K.

Israeli, currently in its third lockdown, also faces high levels of unemployment and a recession, but the authorities have extended the current nationwide lockdown until at least January 31.

Netanyahu’s political opponents also accuse the government of using the vaccine campaign for political gain before the upcoming election.

The country is on track to vaccinate everyone over the age of 16 years just 3 days before the election on March 23. In addition, the government is discussing postponing the election if infection rates stay high.

The government is also receiving criticism for not sharing enough details about what patient data it will share or how Pfizer will use the information.

Government officials only recently disclosed some terms of the deal, claiming that it will only share general data with Pfizer, such as data about the numbers of cases, serious cases, fatalities, and vaccinations, and each individual’s age and gender.

They also say that the data will help researchers assess and track herd immunity, with the results to feature in a recognized medical journal.

But Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, expressed her worries that anonymized patient data, including complete medical histories, will be shared.

Although they will not bear patient names or identifying markers, she said that it is possible to de-anonymize the files. Treating these personal data as though they belong to the government in this way is “not ethically, not legally, and not morally

,” she added.


MEDICAL NEWS TODAY NEWSLETTER
Knowledge is power. Get our free daily newsletter.
Dig deeper into the health topics you care about most. Subscribe to our facts-first newsletter today.

Enter your email
Your privacy is important to us

Health equity issues
According to human rights groups, Palestinians living in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip do not have access to the vaccine and will not for a long time. Under the 4th Geneva Convention, occupying forces must provide healthcare to the populations of the territories they occupy.

Yet Palestinian officials seem reluctant to make a formal request to Israel to provide the vaccine, likely because asking for help from Israel is politically sensitive.

Also, the Oslo Peace Accords of the 1990s, which were meant to be a temporary road map to develop a Palestinian state, gave Palestinians responsibility for their healthcare.

Israel’s health minister reportedly told Sky News that the Palestinians simply need to “learn how to take care of themselves.”

He said that Israel has provided advice, supplies, and medicine to its neighbors, adding that it is in Israel’s best interest to reduce Palestinian case numbers, as many Palestinians work in Israel.

But some international organizations condemn Israel’s failure to provide the vaccine equitably.

According to Saleh Higazi, Amnesty International’s deputy regional director:

“Israel’s COVID-19 vaccine program highlights the institutionalized discrimination that defines the Israeli government’s policy toward Palestinians. There could hardly be a better illustration of how Israeli lives are valued above Palestinian ones.”

The Palestinian government has arranged for vaccine shipments from four companies that should arrive this quarter. The state may also start receiving doses in February from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) vaccine schemeTrusted Source for low-to-middle-income countries.

Another issue complicating the vaccine rollout is the reluctance and fear among the country’s Arab and Orthodox populations regarding the vaccine and pandemic restrictions.

Vaccination rates are low among the Arab community in Israel.

Ultra-Orthodox communities are registering record high numbers of new cases of COVID-19. There are also reports of lax preventive restrictions in these communities, with some schools remaining open and multiple reports of large gatherings.

On January 20, the government announced the launch of a campaign to educate the Ultra-Orthodox community about pandemic risks and the importance of following the rules.​

All the billions given to the "Palis" and they can't get vaccines?

Billions?

I presume you can count what we and the UN have given the "Palis" since the 50s.

USA TODAY

www.usatoday.com

How much aid does the U.S. give Israel?
The United States has given Israel a total of $146 billion in bilateral assistance and missile defense funding through 2020, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which provides nonpartisan research to lawmakers. That makes it the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid since World War II. (Other top recipients include Egypt and Afghanistan.

Israel has spent every penny building a state of the art nation that doesn’t need to beg for resources from other nations.

For your education:

U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

And Israel returns at least 3 times that amount in improvements.
What other nation that takes money from the US gives anything back other than promises not to abuse it's citizens?

returns to whom? Certainly not the Palestinians, and if you can quantify military intelligence sharing/assistance or trading in commodities with the USA that proves your statement, then please produce the FACTS that demonstrate such. Other wise, you're just blowing smoke as usual.
You seem to have a reading comprehension skill. Your original statement in part said, "... (Israel) that doesn’t need to beg for resources from other nations". Well, given the largesse that America forks over (as I documented), I dare say that is correct. Without us, Israel would fold within less than a decade, IMHO. Carry on.

Are you on drugs?
The Palis have been taking since the late 60s and have given nothing to the world except for terrorism.
List the contributions the Palis have given to world without using Arab web-sites.

You do have a knack for making a statement, avoiding a direct question and then putting forth yet another statement as if it validates the first.

It's called burden of proof, son. YOU made a statement, I asked for proof. If you can't give it, then don't waste everyone's time.
Let me dumb it down for you.....Without the USA bucks, Israel folds. You asserted they are independent of foreign aid. I provided proof to the contrary. but rather than just concede a point, you start blathering about "world contributions" to justify aid. Hmm, you should do some homework as to what country has consistently provided medical aid around the world for over 40 years since it's political revolution. And are you really that ridiculous to compare aid to the Palestinians as opposed to what the USA forks over to Israel every 2 years? You can't be that stupid or stubborn. So just either concede the point and stop moving the goal post, or just STFU and go sell your nonsense to one of your like minded compadres on this site. They'll buy anything so long as it's wrapped in a Maga Hat.


So grow up and deal. You were wrong.

I know you're a Jew hater but the one flaw in your wanting the US to drop it's relationship with Israel is that not one other nation gives anything concrete back to the US.
Most of the technology you use would have cost the US much more to develop than the 3.8B the US gives to Israel of which Israel immediately gives back 85% to the US.
Do your homework and stop being boring.

No link. We should just take your word for it

U.S. Loan Guarantees for Israel

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

I hope this makes you a happy asshole as opposed to the unhappy asshole you have been till now.
The fact is that you won't look for anything that shows Israel is evil...which simply proves that you are evil.

Anger mismanagement

The fact that you spend all day on Arab web-sites?

Not one of your posts has anything to do with the thread's title. Only more posts which belong in other threads.

Maybe Coyote needs to post another reminder?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

(full article online)

UN bashes Israel, avoids mention of Hamas child terrorists

The UNSC accused Israel of 'killing and maiming' hundreds of 'Palestinian children', while omitting the phenomenon of child terrorists.

www.israelnationalnews.com

What do Jewish settlers teach their kids?

This is about Hamas teaching their children, not Israel. (Palm hits head)

He said the last year has seen “a marked rise in incidents of violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank” whereby “in many cases, Israeli forces, obligated to protect the Palestinian population under international humanitarian law, stand idly by while olive trees are destroyed, livelihoods are damaged, and even while people are injured or, at worst, killed.”

He said the events in the West Bank village of Al Mughayyir on 26 January were a “sobering example of this extremely troubling phenomenon, where a Palestinian villager was shot dead in the presence of Israeli settlers and soldiers. These incidents not only violate numerous human rights such as the rights to life, security of the person, and freedom of movement of Palestinians, but also serve to expand the area of land over which Israeli settlers have control,” Mr. Lynk stated.

Palestinian children’s education deeply impacted by ‘interference’ around West Bank schools, UN warns

Alarmed by a high number of reported incidents of interference in or near Palestinian schools in the West Bank since the beginning of the school year in September, the UN called on Wednesday for them to be better-protected from the effects of Israeli occupation.

news.un.org

When the UN comes out Neutral on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, let me know

The UN is extremely pro-Israel, and has ignored Palestinian rights from the first day Truman created the UN just so that he could create Israel.
While Palestine is authorized by treaties, like the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres, as well as the inherent rights of all indigenous people, Israel has no legal basis. There is no moral, contractual, historic, cultural, or any reason at all why Israel should exist in any way.
The children born in Israel after 1948 are the only reason why an Israel may have some reason to exist now.

The UN is extremely pro-Israel
You just proved you are psychotic.

(full article online)

UN bashes Israel, avoids mention of Hamas child terrorists

The UNSC accused Israel of 'killing and maiming' hundreds of 'Palestinian children', while omitting the phenomenon of child terrorists.

www.israelnationalnews.com

What do Jewish settlers teach their kids?

This is about Hamas teaching their children, not Israel. (Palm hits head)

He said the last year has seen “a marked rise in incidents of violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank” whereby “in many cases, Israeli forces, obligated to protect the Palestinian population under international humanitarian law, stand idly by while olive trees are destroyed, livelihoods are damaged, and even while people are injured or, at worst, killed.”

He said the events in the West Bank village of Al Mughayyir on 26 January were a “sobering example of this extremely troubling phenomenon, where a Palestinian villager was shot dead in the presence of Israeli settlers and soldiers. These incidents not only violate numerous human rights such as the rights to life, security of the person, and freedom of movement of Palestinians, but also serve to expand the area of land over which Israeli settlers have control,” Mr. Lynk stated.

Palestinian children’s education deeply impacted by ‘interference’ around West Bank schools, UN warns

Alarmed by a high number of reported incidents of interference in or near Palestinian schools in the West Bank since the beginning of the school year in September, the UN called on Wednesday for them to be better-protected from the effects of Israeli occupation.

news.un.org

When the UN comes out Neutral on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, let me know

The UN is extremely pro-Israel, and has ignored Palestinian rights from the first day Truman created the UN just so that he could create Israel.
While Palestine is authorized by treaties, like the Treaty of San Remo and Treaty of Sevres, as well as the inherent rights of all indigenous people, Israel has no legal basis. There is no moral, contractual, historic, cultural, or any reason at all why Israel should exist in any way.
The children born in Israel after 1948 are the only reason why an Israel may have some reason to exist now.

The UN is extremely pro-Israel
You just proved you are psychotic.

SECURITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZES INTERNATIONAL SECURITY FORCE FOR AFGHANISTAN; WELCOMES UNITED KINGDOM’S OFFER TO BE INITIAL LEAD NATION | UN Press

www.un.org

So?

U.N. Resolution 1483. It was passed 14-0 by the 15-member Security Council May 22 (Syria abstained) to legitimize the U.S-led Iraqi occupation and smooth strained relations between the United States and nations, such as France, Germany, and Russia, that opposed the Iraq war. The Bush administration resisted giving the United Nations a substantive role in Iraq, and the resolution spelled out the U.N. role in vague and ambiguous terms

If I lived on the continent next to 1 billion Muslims I'd also vote with them.

The Security Council is a body of 15 members, five of which are permanent and have veto power: the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. The newly elected five will join India, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico and Norway, the other non-permanent members.Jun 11, 2021
UN News › story › 2021/06
UN elects five new members to serve on the Security Council | | UN News - the United Nations

UN elects five new members to serve on the Security Council

Albania, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were elected by the 75th session of the General Assembly on Friday to serve as non-permanent members of the UN Security Council for the 2022-2023 term.

news.un.org