Is Israel the Same as South Africa?

[Hoffstra]

....Their THIRD mistake was pulling their civilians out of Israeli-controlled territory and thereby abandoning their lands, on the false promises of their Arab neighbor countries that all would be won back for them.

Three strikes and you're out.

you mean like how the Jews "pulled" their people out of the Middle East after the 1948 war?

 

[Kondor3]

That wasn't the Jews pulling their people out...

That was the Arabs kicking the Jews out...

Unlike the Palestinian-Arabs, where the vast majority were not kicked-off their land, but voluntarily abandoned it after being persuaded to do so by their Muslim-Arab neighbor-countries, who promised to win it all back for them within a couple of weeks...

65 years later, the less ambitious and resourceful of those Palestinians who made that choice and their descendants, are still paying the price for their foolishness, rotting in refugee camps and towns... 65 friggin' years later!!!...

You'd have thought they'd have taken the hint by now and moved on to greener pastures...

The Jews in other Arab countries, however, were simply expelled - not just a small percentage of them being kicked-out by local militias, but ALL of them kicked-out, through the actions of Central Government A or B or C...

 

[Hoffstra]

That wasn't the Jews pulling their people out...

That was the Arabs kicking the Jews out...

Unlike the Palestinian-Arabs, where the vast majority were not kicked-off their land, but voluntarily abandoned it after being persuaded to do so by their Muslim-Arab neighbor-countries...

you are lying.

just as around half of the Jews were expelled from Arab/Muslim lands, around half of the Arabs were expelled from Israel.

there can be no peace when folks like you keep lying about history.

 

[Kondor3]

That wasn't the Jews pulling their people out...

That was the Arabs kicking the Jews out...

Unlike the Palestinian-Arabs, where the vast majority were not kicked-off their land, but voluntarily abandoned it after being persuaded to do so by their Muslim-Arab neighbor-countries...

you are lying.

just as around half of the Jews were expelled from Arab/Muslim lands, around half of the Arabs were expelled from Israel.

there can be no peace when folks like you keep lying about history.

I seldom lie, and can never recall telling a lie on this forum.

I may have made a handful of mistakes here-and-there.

But I don't lie, and certainly do not feel pressured to by the likes of you.

The obligatory Wiki is a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries

There were, indeed, a couple of Arab countries in which the Jews bailed-out en masse voluntarily - kinda-sorta...

There were, however, far more countries, and time-frames, in which they were pushed out by those central governments or driven-out by street mobs or had their citizenship pulled, necessitating flight, and on and on and on...

And those were Jews being pushed out in PEACETIME within those various national borders...

Whereas the minority of Palestinians who were pushed out of THEIR homes by militia units in the 1948-1949 timeframe were in a land actively engaged in WAR, against their co-religionists, not peacetime within those borders...

And, yes, when you strip-out those who came to Israel voluntarily versus those who were obliged to flee their countries due to persecution during peacetime, you find that those pushed out were, indeed, in the majority...

Perhaps I erred in not using the phrase 'substantial majority' rather than 'vast majority', but I wasn't far off the mark, and if it WAS off the mark, it was off the mark as a mistake, and not a lie...

I would not lower myself to LIE to a Palestinian propaganda shill.

There's really no need; especially when one's side is winning by such impressive margins.

As to 'peace'... there is no such thing in the Palestinian vocabulary... at least not while a single Jew breathes 'between River and Sea'... who do you think you're kidding?

 

[Hoffstra]

I would not lower myself to LIE to a Palestinian propaganda shill.

There's really no need; especially when one's side is winning by such impressive margins.

why do you insist on continuing with these personal attacks?

can't we talk about these issues, without them?

 

[MHunterB]

I would not lower myself to LIE to a Palestinian propaganda shill.

There's really no need; especially when one's side is winning by such impressive margins.

why do you insist on continuing with these personal attacks?

can't we talk about these issues, without them?

LOL!!! Oh, that's so amusing coming as it does from a fraud and a fake. So, how do you davven, Hoffy?

 

[Kondor3]

I would not lower myself to LIE to a Palestinian propaganda shill.

There's really no need; especially when one's side is winning by such impressive margins.

why do you insist on continuing with these personal attacks?

can't we talk about these issues, without them?

I consider an accusation of 'lying' to be a personal attack.

In that context, you fired the first shot.

But, of course, somehow, you managed to overlook that.

 

[Hoffstra]

LOL!!! Oh, that' so amusing coming as it does from a fraud and a fake. So, how do you davven, Hoffy?

why do you keep trolling me, by asking me how I pray?

this thread is about Israel and Apartheid, not my praying habits.

 

[MHunterB]

LOL!!! Oh, that' so amusing coming as it does from a fraud and a fake. So, how do you davven, Hoffy?

why do you keep trolling me, by asking me how I pray?

this thread is about Israel and Apartheid, not my praying habits.

The question goes to your assertions that you are a actual member of the Jewish people who has at some time actually been a practitioner of Judaism. It's not 'trolling' .

 

[Hoffstra]

Israel and the West Bank will become one state.

the only question is whether the Arabs will have full rights or be second class citizens.

 

[RoccoR]

Hoffstra, et al,

I am interested in your theory.

Israel and the West Bank will become one state.

the only question is whether the Arabs will have full rights or be second class citizens.

(COMMENT)

I think it would take more than a century peace (non-violence) before they will establish normalized relations between the people themselves; based on the number of residual Article 15 Jihadists.

But I would be interested in understanding your theory on how a productive nation could emerge from the two cultures.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

Now that it is slowly dawning upon the Palestinians that they cannot win militarily...

They are beginning to conjure sugar-plum visions of dismantling the Palestinian government and allowing Israel to annex the West Bank and Gaza and for all of the Palestinians to become citizens of Israel...

This way, inside of a generation or so, they figure they can breed them out (out-produce the Israelis with new births) and then out-vote them at the polls, and thus re-take by Ballot what they could not re-take by the Rifle...

Silly, silly Arabs...

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

Several issues here.

More than six decades ago, Rocco, Jews were one-third of all Palestinians owning about seven percent of the land. Today Jews control virtually all the land and water between the River and the sea. What response would you expect from those who've been victimized by Israel's creeping annexation since its "independence" in 1948?

BTW, that bear's currently waking up in Moscow.

(COMMENT)

The Partition Plan is set the original conditions for the Jewish State and the Arab State (both unnamed at the time). The Partition Plan was not a Jewish contrivance, but rather, a UN recommendation by a special committee (representatives of Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, India, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia) to the General Assembly.

• The choice the Arabs and Palestinians made to reject both the Plan and participation in the implementation process, as well as, the choice to open hostilities --- set the conditions for the loss of ground control.
  
• The Palestinian loss of ground control lead to the loss of resource control; a consequence of failure.

There is no "creeping annexation." The territory bounded by the Armistice Lines that form the West Bank and Gaza Strip are formally recognized as the State of Palestine (SoP) (1988). The Government of Israel (GoI) has not made any attempt to "annex" any portion of this territory, now defined as the State of Palestine.

• At some point, the GoI will have to relinquish occupation control of the West Bank to SoP; within a framework of peace.
  
• Organizational and infrastructural improvements that the GoI makes to Palestinian Territory is to the advantage to the SoP.

The Palestinians have demanded that ALL of the territory formally known as the Mandate for Palestine (less Jordan), belongs to the Arabs. The Jewish Agency (out numbered 2:1 as you pointed out) by the Arab Palestinian, supported additionally by the combined forces of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, attempted by military force to negate the decision of the UN and to deny the right of the Jewish Agency to accept their apportionment under the Partition Plan. The 1948 War of Independence and the two subsequent wars, provoked by the Arab Palestinian, supported additionally by the combined forces of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, have successively failed to take by military aggression (in combination with state sponsored terrorism) what they were denied by the UN.

It is absolutely essential to the discussion to understand the military occupation of territory today was a direct outcome of military intervention by the Arab League (external influences) in direct support and coordination with Hostile Arab Palestinians in there bid to take control of Israel, and all the territory bounded by the former British Mandate for Palestine (less Jordan); as claimed by the Palestine National Charter of 1968.

Most Respectfully,
R

The UN Partition Plan is why the Arab League objected to giving Jews 55% of Mandate Palestine and that bit of western imperial deceit was only obtained through bribes and intimidation as even Harry Truman noted:

"United States (Vote: For): President Truman later noted, 'The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats—disturbed and annoyed me.'[24]

"India (Vote: Against): Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless 'she voted right'.[25]

"Liberia (Vote: For): Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries.[26] Harvey S. Firestone, Jr., President of Firestone Natural Rubber Company, with major holdings in the country, also pressured the Liberian government[21][23]

"Philippines (Vote: For): In the days before the vote, the Philippines' representative General Carlos P. Romulo stated 'We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. The Philippines Government holds that the United Nations ought not to accept such responsibility'. After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines' vote changed.[23]

"Haiti (Vote: For): The promise of a five million dollar loan may have secured Haiti's vote for partition.[27]

"France (Vote: For): Shortly before the vote, France's delegate to the United Nations was visited by Bernard Baruch, a long-term Jewish supporter of the Democratic Party who, during the recent world war, had been an economic adviser to President Roosevelt, and had latterly been appointed by President Truman as the United States' ambassador to the newly-created UN Atomic Energy Commission. He was, privately, a supporter of the Irgun and it's front organization, the American League for a Free Palestine. Baruch implied that a French failure to support the resolution might cause planned American aid to France, which was badly needed for reconstruction, French currency reserves being exhausted and its balance of payments heavily in deficit, not to materialise. Previously, in order to avoid antagonising its Arab colonies, France had not publicly supported the resolution. After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France's neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.[20]"

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn4r7ZjG9Nc&list=PL0877FD9B8BE484CE&index=32]A PALESTINIAN MYTH - The so said NAKBA - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed. George, resolution 181 was bases on threats, bribes, and arm twisting.

If you read about Israel's admission to the UN: A/PV.207 of 11 May 1949 You seriously wonder how it got the votes.

Apart from those issues, was it possible to maintain that the applicant State was eligible for membership under Article 4 of the Charter? The replies of the representative of that State, as well as the behaviour of his Government with regard to the relevant decisions of the General Assembly, led to the conclusion tot Israel had not fulfilled and still did not fulfil the requirements of that Article. Furthermore, was the Assembly satisfied that the applicant State had definite boundaries within which it exercised its jurisdiction? Mr. Abbas stressed that, in putting those considerations before the Assembly, he was merely asking it to be fair and impartial in its judgment

Attempts were being made to effect Israel's admission before a full report had been received from the Conciliation Commission, which had been set up to consider many of the points raised in the course of the current discussion. Pressure hid been exerted to order to force a hasty decision upon the General Assembly. Mr. Abbas felt that such a decision would not be in the interests of Israel or of toe United Nations as a whole.

The delegation of Iraq considered that the whole question of Palestine had been treated in a manner contrary to the principles of the Charter and of international law and to the ancient principle whereby every country was allotted to the people who inhabited it. In view of those considerations, the delegation of Iraq was of the opinion that the admission of Israel to the United Nations would be the highest consummation of injustice and would drive another nail into the coffin of the United Nations.

The frontiers of the State applying for membership in the United Nations were as yet undefined. Moreover, the status of the area in and around Jerusalem and of the Holy Places all over Palestine, which were to have come under direct and effective United Nations control, was not yet determined.

The representative of the applicant State had failed to give satisfactory answers on any of the three main issues raised in the Ad Hoc Political Committee. It was clear that the applicant State intended to do practically nothing in connexion with the fate of the displaced Arabs. Equally, it had done nothing substantial in the matter of the assassination of the late United Nations Mediator. In that connexion, Fawzi Bey remarked that certain statements in the report (S/1315) submitted by the applicant State to the Security Council on that matter were incorrect He also observed that he understood that the reputed assassins were to be decorated by their Government.

The Committee had decided, contrary to long-established practice, to invite the representative of the applicant State to participate in the discussion. Even before that representative had completed his statements and replies, however, a joint resolution had been submitted recommending the admission of Israel to the United Nations, thus showing that the statements of the representative of the applicant State could have had but little effect on the intentions of the sponsors of the resolution. The resolution was in favour of admitting the applicant State to membership in the United Nations, but not of admitting the Arab refugees to their own homes. Were those refugees not human beings? Did not a Universal Declaration of Human Rights exist? The displaced Arabs continued to suffer from starvation and disease, they received bad food under the cloak of international charity, they were refused enjoyment of their rights as members of a nation, as human beings and as owners of property. Who would make good the humiliations they were suffering? What restitution would be offered for the death of their children? Who would compensate them for the loss of their property and their country? Fawzi Bey did not believe that any of those things would be done by the delegations which favoured the admission of Israel, or by the Jews themselves, who had systematically driven a whole nation out of their native land.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I believe you've made another timeline mistake (as opposed to an attempt to intentionally mislead George).

Indeed. George, resolution 181 was bases on threats, bribes, and arm twisting.

If you read about Israel's admission to the UN: A/PV.207 of 11 May 1949 You seriously wonder how it got the votes.

(COMMENT)

As you can see, this (A/PV.207 of 11 May 1949) is not about the passage of General Assembly Resolution 181(II) which was passed in 1947 (two years earlier). This is a discussion on the acceptance of the Application for Membership; pertaining to the pledge in Part I, Section F, of GA/RES/181(II) ("sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission") IAW Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. This discussion was held two months after the adoption of the application by the Security Council.

It had nothing to do with the actual acceptance to the UNCOP recommendation for GA/RES/181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I believe you've made another timeline mistake (as opposed to an attempt to intentionally mislead George).

Indeed. George, resolution 181 was bases on threats, bribes, and arm twisting.

If you read about Israel's admission to the UN: A/PV.207 of 11 May 1949 You seriously wonder how it got the votes.

(COMMENT)

As you can see, this (A/PV.207 of 11 May 1949) is not about the passage of General Assembly Resolution 181(II) which was passed in 1947 (two years earlier). This is a discussion on the acceptance of the Application for Membership; pertaining to the pledge in Part I, Section F, of GA/RES/181(II) ("sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission") IAW Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. This discussion was held two months after the adoption of the application by the Security Council.

It had nothing to do with the actual acceptance to the UNCOP recommendation for GA/RES/181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

I listed these as two separate issues, Perhaps I should have been more clear.

There were issues in the vote on resolution 181.

There were also issues in Israel's acceptance into the UN.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Clearly, the adoption of GA/RES/181(II) and its implementation were pivotal points in the outcomes we see today.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I believe you've made another timeline mistake (as opposed to an attempt to intentionally mislead George).

Indeed. George, resolution 181 was bases on threats, bribes, and arm twisting.

If you read about Israel's admission to the UN: A/PV.207 of 11 May 1949 You seriously wonder how it got the votes.

(COMMENT)

As you can see, this (A/PV.207 of 11 May 1949) is not about the passage of General Assembly Resolution 181(II) which was passed in 1947 (two years earlier). This is a discussion on the acceptance of the Application for Membership; pertaining to the pledge in Part I, Section F, of GA/RES/181(II) ("sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission") IAW Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. This discussion was held two months after the adoption of the application by the Security Council.

It had nothing to do with the actual acceptance to the UNCOP recommendation for GA/RES/181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

I listed these as two separate issues, Perhaps I should have been more clear.

There were issues in the vote on resolution 181.

There were also issues in Israel's acceptance into the UN.

(COMMENT)

On the issue of GA/RES/181(II), it is exceptionally hard to see and understand the perspectives of the UNCOP and General Assembly in that that timeframe. We can Monday Morning Quarterback the game, and point fingers today. But back then, it was an entirely different environment; a very different set of conditions all together.

The surviving Jews of Europe, fresh from the clutches of the Final Solution and the horrors of the Holocaust, had a mind set; one which the Arab could not appreciate.

It should be remembered that nowhere, in the annals of history for the last two millennium, do we attribute any wars aggression or conquest to the Jewish People. The same could not be said for many nations of the world; especially the Arab.​

The need and the mindset for the special consideration given the Jewish People was of a magnitude that few can appreciate today. While I've heard all the pro-Palestinian discussion on how terrible the conditions are in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, all about the "apartheid" character of Israel, I seriously doubt that the Palestinian has any conditions to report of a comparative nature to Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Dachau, Majdanek, Sobibor, or Treblinka. Just as I am sure that the (apartheid era) condition in Soweto (SA) are in no way replicated in Palestine (West Bank or Gaza). The "occupation" is about the containment of the violence promoted by Jihadist and Feday'een activities; which organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, and encourage operations against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of Israel.

It is not expected that the Palestinian should understand the reasons, no matter how it is explained. The myopic view is that only the Palestinians have the right to self determinations, and so they manipulate the facts behind criminal containment and the quarantine of the Jihadist and Feday'een, so necessary to maintain peace and security, into disguised victimization. They tend to deny and past history of criminal and terrorist behaviors; even as they call for it today.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[docmauser1]

The UN Partition Plan is why the Arab League objected to giving Jews 55% of Mandate Palestine ...

The UNSCOP reported to the Security Council on Feb.16, 1948:
"Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
And they decided to fight it out and got a kampfstiefel in the arse and are still trying to pull it out painfully. Case dismissed and closed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Clearly, the adoption of GA/RES/181(II) and its implementation were pivotal points in the outcomes we see today.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I believe you've made another timeline mistake (as opposed to an attempt to intentionally mislead George).


(COMMENT)

As you can see, this (A/PV.207 of 11 May 1949) is not about the passage of General Assembly Resolution 181(II) which was passed in 1947 (two years earlier). This is a discussion on the acceptance of the Application for Membership; pertaining to the pledge in Part I, Section F, of GA/RES/181(II) ("sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission") IAW Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. This discussion was held two months after the adoption of the application by the Security Council.

It had nothing to do with the actual acceptance to the UNCOP recommendation for GA/RES/181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

I listed these as two separate issues, Perhaps I should have been more clear.

There were issues in the vote on resolution 181.

There were also issues in Israel's acceptance into the UN.

(COMMENT)

On the issue of GA/RES/181(II), it is exceptionally hard to see and understand the perspectives of the UNCOP and General Assembly in that that timeframe. We can Monday Morning Quarterback the game, and point fingers today. But back then, it was an entirely different environment; a very different set of conditions all together.

The surviving Jews of Europe, fresh from the clutches of the Final Solution and the horrors of the Holocaust, had a mind set; one which the Arab could not appreciate.

It should be remembered that nowhere, in the annals of history for the last two millennium, do we attribute any wars aggression or conquest to the Jewish People. The same could not be said for many nations of the world; especially the Arab.​

The need and the mindset for the special consideration given the Jewish People was of a magnitude that few can appreciate today. While I've heard all the pro-Palestinian discussion on how terrible the conditions are in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, all about the "apartheid" character of Israel, I seriously doubt that the Palestinian has any conditions to report of a comparative nature to Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Dachau, Majdanek, Sobibor, or Treblinka. Just as I am sure that the (apartheid era) condition in Soweto (SA) are in no way replicated in Palestine (West Bank or Gaza). The "occupation" is about the containment of the violence promoted by Jihadist and Feday'een activities; which organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, and encourage operations against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of Israel.

It is not expected that the Palestinian should understand the reasons, no matter how it is explained. The myopic view is that only the Palestinians have the right to self determinations, and so they manipulate the facts behind criminal containment and the quarantine of the Jihadist and Feday'een, so necessary to maintain peace and security, into disguised victimization. They tend to deny and past history of criminal and terrorist behaviors; even as they call for it today.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why should the Palestinians get the boot because of what happened in Europe?

The delegation of Iraq considered that the whole question of Palestine had been treated in a manner contrary to the principles of the Charter and of international law and to the ancient principle whereby every country was allotted to the people who inhabited it.

A/PV.207 of 11 May 1949

Why do you always slime the Palestinians for defending their rights?