Israel attacks civilians

[docmauser1]

They (the bedouinians) still drive livestock to where the grass is at any given time but they had established a home base.

And the grass is always on the other side of the fence, of course. Heheheheh!!

 

[Billo_Really]

And the grass is always on the other side of the fence, of course. Heheheheh!!

My mama always said,
"When the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, then someone forgot to mow the lawn!"

 

[Hollie]

They (the bedouinians) still drive livestock to where the grass is at any given time but they had established a home base.

...on someone else's land.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

They (the bedouinians) still drive livestock to where the grass is at any given time but they had established a home base.

...on someone else's land.

Hollie,

And whose land would that be?

Robert Fisk writes that over 90% of the land in Israel has an Arab and an Israeli owner. This was information Israeli land officials provided to him, he wrote about this in his books.

When Israel was given legitimacy as a state, that did not give her authority under intl law to take away the rights of individual landowners to their land.

A real democracy represents all of the people in the land, not just one race or ethnic group.

Sherri

 

[Hollie]

...on someone else's land.

Hollie,

And whose land would that be?

Robert Fisk writes that over 90% of the land in Israel has an Arab and an Israeli owner. This was information Israeli land officials provided to him, he wrote about this in his books.

When Israel was given legitimacy as a state, that did not give her authority under intl law to take away the rights of individual landowners to their land.

A real democracy represents all of the people in the land, not just one race or ethnic group.

Sherri

I think many of us are familiar with Robert “they’re beating me and I deserve it” Fisk. Journalism used to be a profession of ethics and personal credibility. Robert Fisk was such a hack that slanted journalism and bised reporting was described as “Fisking”.

I don’t mean to discredit your comments but Robert Fisk is a laughing stock in the journalist community.

Urban Dictionary: fisking
Fisking
The word is derived from articles written by Robert Fisk that were easily refuted, and refers to a point-by-point debunking of lies and/or idiocies.
Here we have a great example of a fisking of a clearly biased writer.

Fisking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term fisking is blogosphere slang describing a point-by-point criticism that highlights perceived errors, or disputes the analysis in a statement, article, or essay.[1]
Eric S. Raymond, in the Jargon File, defined the term as:
A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form.[2]


I tried to address the ownership of land in a previous post. I'm just not convinced by arguments from Arabs / moslems that land was stolen as they claim. I know enough about the islamist precepts of waqf and islamist ideology to believe that claims to their entitlement to "Muslim Lands" carries with it a lot of historical and ideological baggage.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Hollie,

And whose land would that be?

Robert Fisk writes that over 90% of the land in Israel has an Arab and an Israeli owner. This was information Israeli land officials provided to him, he wrote about this in his books.

When Israel was given legitimacy as a state, that did not give her authority under intl law to take away the rights of individual landowners to their land.

A real democracy represents all of the people in the land, not just one race or ethnic group.

Sherri

I think many of us are familiar with Robert “they’re beating me and I deserve it” Fisk. Journalism used to be a profession of ethics and personal credibility. Robert Fisk was such a hack that slanted journalism and bised reporting was described as “Fisking”.

I don’t mean to discredit your comments but Robert Fisk is a laughing stock in the journalist community.

Urban Dictionary: fisking
Fisking
The word is derived from articles written by Robert Fisk that were easily refuted, and refers to a point-by-point debunking of lies and/or idiocies.
Here we have a great example of a fisking of a clearly biased writer.

Fisking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term fisking is blogosphere slang describing a point-by-point criticism that highlights perceived errors, or disputes the analysis in a statement, article, or essay.[1]
Eric S. Raymond, in the Jargon File, defined the term as:
A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form.[2]


I tried to address the ownership of land in a previous post. I'm just not convinced by arguments from Arabs / moslems that land was stolen as they claim. I know enough about the islamist precepts of waqf and islamist ideology to believe that claims to their entitlement to "Muslim Lands" carries with it a lot of historical and ideological baggage.

Hollie,

I am quite familiar with this popular tactic, of right wing types ,of attacking the messenger to deflect from the truth being told about events unfolding with respect to Israel. And it has really gotten old, and simply does not work anymore. It has lost its effectiveness.

Robert Fisk has worked as a journalist in Lebanon for deacades, and he has written thousands of articles for papers and written two very detailed books about the events unfloding in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East, entitled Pity The Nation and The Great War For Civilisation.

Here is what Robert Fisk reported about land ownership in Israel, pre 1948, and as I write this, I realize I was wrong about the percentage of land with an Arab and Israeli owner today, that figure is 70%, not 90%. And it is not only Israel who holds records establishing these facts, Turkey does, too.


"The Custodian of Absentee Property did not choose to discuss politics. But when I asked him how much of the land of the state of Israel might potentially have two claimants — an Arab and a Jew holding respectively a British mandate and an Israeli deed to the same property — he said he believed that ‘about 70 percent’ might fall into this category. If this figure was accurate — and it should be remembered that over half of Israel in 1948 consisted of the Negev desert — then it suggested that Arabs owned a far greater proportion of that part of Palestine which became Israel than has previously been imagined. Jacob Manor seemed unaffected by this fact. ‘Do you really believe that the Palestinians want to come back?’ he asked. ‘Most of them have died. And their children are in good positions now.’

If this extraordinary statement involved a blindness to reality, it provided no warning of the storm of anger and abuse which my series of articles in The Times was to generate among Israelis and their supporters in Britain. At some length and in careful detail I had told the story of David Damiani, Kanaan Abut Khadra, Fatima Zamzam and of another Palestinian woman, Rifka Boulos, who had lost land in Jerusalem. To visit their former homes and lands had been like touching history. For I had also told of the lives of those who now lived on or near those lands. Save for one mention of a PLO official in Beirut — the spokesman slugging champagne at the diplomatic reception — Yassir Arafat’s organisation did not receive a single reference in the thousands of words I wrote. The Times also carried a long interview with Jacob Manor. But the reaction to the articles — a series that dealt with Palestinians as individual human beings rather than as some kind of refugee caste manipulated by fanatics and ‘terrorists’ — was deeply instructive."

Robert Fisk - The Keys to Palestine

Sherri

 

[Hollie]

I think many of us are familiar with Robert “they’re beating me and I deserve it” Fisk. Journalism used to be a profession of ethics and personal credibility. Robert Fisk was such a hack that slanted journalism and bised reporting was described as “Fisking”.

I don’t mean to discredit your comments but Robert Fisk is a laughing stock in the journalist community.

Urban Dictionary: fisking
Fisking
The word is derived from articles written by Robert Fisk that were easily refuted, and refers to a point-by-point debunking of lies and/or idiocies.
Here we have a great example of a fisking of a clearly biased writer.

Fisking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term fisking is blogosphere slang describing a point-by-point criticism that highlights perceived errors, or disputes the analysis in a statement, article, or essay.[1]
Eric S. Raymond, in the Jargon File, defined the term as:
A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form.[2]


I tried to address the ownership of land in a previous post. I'm just not convinced by arguments from Arabs / moslems that land was stolen as they claim. I know enough about the islamist precepts of waqf and islamist ideology to believe that claims to their entitlement to "Muslim Lands" carries with it a lot of historical and ideological baggage.

Hollie,

I am quite familiar with this popular tactic, of right wing types ,of attacking the messenger to deflect from the truth being told about events unfolding with respect to Israel. And it has really gotten old, and simply does not work anymore. It has lost its effectiveness.

Robert Fisk has worked as a journalist in Lebanon for deacades, and he has written thousands of articles for papers and written two very detailed books about the events unfloding in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East, entitled Pity The Nation and The Great War For Civilisation.

Here is what Robert Fisk reported about land ownership in Israel, pre 1948, and as I write this, I realize I was wrong about the percentage of land with an Arab and Israeli owner today, that figure is 70%, not 90%. And it is not only Israel who holds records establishing these facts, Turkey does, too.


"The Custodian of Absentee Property did not choose to discuss politics. But when I asked him how much of the land of the state of Israel might potentially have two claimants — an Arab and a Jew holding respectively a British mandate and an Israeli deed to the same property — he said he believed that ‘about 70 percent’ might fall into this category. If this figure was accurate — and it should be remembered that over half of Israel in 1948 consisted of the Negev desert — then it suggested that Arabs owned a far greater proportion of that part of Palestine which became Israel than has previously been imagined. Jacob Manor seemed unaffected by this fact. ‘Do you really believe that the Palestinians want to come back?’ he asked. ‘Most of them have died. And their children are in good positions now.’

If this extraordinary statement involved a blindness to reality, it provided no warning of the storm of anger and abuse which my series of articles in The Times was to generate among Israelis and their supporters in Britain. At some length and in careful detail I had told the story of David Damiani, Kanaan Abut Khadra, Fatima Zamzam and of another Palestinian woman, Rifka Boulos, who had lost land in Jerusalem. To visit their former homes and lands had been like touching history. For I had also told of the lives of those who now lived on or near those lands. Save for one mention of a PLO official in Beirut — the spokesman slugging champagne at the diplomatic reception — Yassir Arafat’s organisation did not receive a single reference in the thousands of words I wrote. The Times also carried a long interview with Jacob Manor. But the reaction to the articles — a series that dealt with Palestinians as individual human beings rather than as some kind of refugee caste manipulated by fanatics and ‘terrorists’ — was deeply instructive."

Robert Fisk - The Keys to Palestine

Sherri

You can call it a tactic if you wish but that does not change the fact that Fisk has a reputation (that he built himself), of slanted journalism. Fisk writing a book covering recent Middle Eastern history is really immaterial.

I think that if anyone examines geopolitics in the islamist Middle East there comes an understanding that the focal point of the myriad issues confronting the Arab/Moslem world has everything to do with the existence of Jews and a Jewish state on land considered to be an islamist waqf, Arab intransigence, an inability to compromise and an injured Arab / Moslem psyche that is still reeling from Western ascendency. Arabs / moslems were once a formidable military force and their wars of conquest and subjugation girdled the globe. The point of contention that grips the Arab / Moslem psyche and which fuels their 800 year-old grudge is the humiliating incompetence and ineptitude of theocratic totalitarianism as compared to liberal democracy. This enrages Arabs / Moslems and their wounded, adolescent pride is still suffering.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Hollie,

I am quite familiar with this popular tactic, of right wing types ,of attacking the messenger to deflect from the truth being told about events unfolding with respect to Israel. And it has really gotten old, and simply does not work anymore. It has lost its effectiveness.

Robert Fisk has worked as a journalist in Lebanon for deacades, and he has written thousands of articles for papers and written two very detailed books about the events unfloding in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East, entitled Pity The Nation and The Great War For Civilisation.

Here is what Robert Fisk reported about land ownership in Israel, pre 1948, and as I write this, I realize I was wrong about the percentage of land with an Arab and Israeli owner today, that figure is 70%, not 90%. And it is not only Israel who holds records establishing these facts, Turkey does, too.


"The Custodian of Absentee Property did not choose to discuss politics. But when I asked him how much of the land of the state of Israel might potentially have two claimants — an Arab and a Jew holding respectively a British mandate and an Israeli deed to the same property — he said he believed that ‘about 70 percent’ might fall into this category. If this figure was accurate — and it should be remembered that over half of Israel in 1948 consisted of the Negev desert — then it suggested that Arabs owned a far greater proportion of that part of Palestine which became Israel than has previously been imagined. Jacob Manor seemed unaffected by this fact. ‘Do you really believe that the Palestinians want to come back?’ he asked. ‘Most of them have died. And their children are in good positions now.’

If this extraordinary statement involved a blindness to reality, it provided no warning of the storm of anger and abuse which my series of articles in The Times was to generate among Israelis and their supporters in Britain. At some length and in careful detail I had told the story of David Damiani, Kanaan Abut Khadra, Fatima Zamzam and of another Palestinian woman, Rifka Boulos, who had lost land in Jerusalem. To visit their former homes and lands had been like touching history. For I had also told of the lives of those who now lived on or near those lands. Save for one mention of a PLO official in Beirut — the spokesman slugging champagne at the diplomatic reception — Yassir Arafat’s organisation did not receive a single reference in the thousands of words I wrote. The Times also carried a long interview with Jacob Manor. But the reaction to the articles — a series that dealt with Palestinians as individual human beings rather than as some kind of refugee caste manipulated by fanatics and ‘terrorists’ — was deeply instructive."

Robert Fisk - The Keys to Palestine

Sherri

You can call it a tactic if you wish but that does not change the fact that Fisk has a reputation (that he built himself), of slanted journalism. Fisk writing a book covering recent Middle Eastern history is really immaterial.

I think that if anyone examines geopolitics in the islamist Middle East there comes an understanding that the focal point of the myriad issues confronting the Arab/Moslem world has everything to do with the existence of Jews and a Jewish state on land considered to be an islamist waqf, Arab intransigence, an inability to compromise and an injured Arab / Moslem psyche that is still reeling from Western ascendency. Arabs / moslems were once a formidable military force and their wars of conquest and subjugation girdled the globe. The point of contention that grips the Arab / Moslem psyche and which fuels their 800 year-old grudge is the humiliating incompetence and ineptitude of theocratic totalitarianism as compared to liberal democracy. This enrages Arabs / Moslems and their wounded, adolescent pride is still suffering.[/QUOT

Hollie,

You can choose to buy into all the distorted truths you choose, and I can choose to believe Truth, including the truth about who Robert Fisk is, a principled and reputable journalist who has spent decades reporting on uncomfortable truths about what is really happening in the Middle East. There is such Freedom in the Truth, I can only pity those who deny it and distort it! And while there was much criticism of his reporting on the stories of the individual refugees and the 70% of the land which has both an Arab and Israeli owner, primarily because they showed the human side of the refugees, these facts were not proven to be false.


Israel did not just walk into an uninhabited land, which had no owners of the land in 1948. Prior to the ethnic cleansing in 1947 through 1949 that removed over 750,000 Arabs from Palestine, Arabs made up over two thirds of the population of Palestine and Jews owned only 6% of the land of Palestine, these facts are reported in UN documents.


"During the 25 years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewry. Over this period the Jewish population of Palestine, composed principally of immigrants, increased from less than 10 per cent in 1917 to over 30 per cent in 1947. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after the Second World War. Great Britain, as the Mandatory Power, tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. A partition scheme, a formula for provincial autonomy, a unified independent Palestine were all considered and abandoned, and in 1947, Great Britain in frustration turned the problem over to the United Nations."

"The basic conflict in Palestine is a clash of two intense nationalisms. Regardless of the historical origins of the conflict, the rights and wrongs of the promises and counter-promises, and the international intervention incident to the Mandate, there are now in Palestine some 650,000 Jews and some 1,200,000 Arabs who are dissimilar in their ways of living and, for the time being, separated by political interests which render difficult full and effective political co-operation among them, whether voluntary or induced by constitutional arrangements."

The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part II: 1947-1977 (30 June 1979)


"At the culmination of a quarter century of Mandatory rule, Palestine had been radically transformed in demographic terms. The population of Palestine had increased tremendously - from the 750,000 of the 1922 census to almost 1,850,000 at the end of 1946 - an increase of nearly 250 per cent. During this period the Jewish population had soared from 56,000 after the First World War to 84,000 in 1922 to 608,000 in 1946, an increase of about 725 per cent. 141/ From constituting less than a tenth of the population in Palestine after the First World War, the Jewish community in 1947 constituted nearly a third. A good part of this was due to births within Palestine but legal immigration alone accounted for over 376,000, with illegal immigration being estimated at another 65,000 - a total of 440,000. 142/ This Jewish population was primarily urban - about 70 per cent to 75 per cent in and around the cities of Jerusalem, Jaffa-Tel Aviv and Haifa. 143/

Land holding patterns had also changed considerably. From the 650,000 dunums held by Jewish organizations in 1920, of the total land area of 26 million dunums, the figure at the end of 1946 had reached 1,625,000 dunums - an increase of about 250 per cent 144/ and Jewish settlement had displaced large numbers of Palestinian Arab peasants. Even so, this area represented only 6.2 per cent of the total area of Palestine and 12 per cent of the cultivable land. "


http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/AEAC80E740C782E4852561150071FDB0


Why would the indigenous peoples be unhappy with the Partition Plan? It allocated over half of the land of Palestine to a Jewish State, when Jews made up less than one third of the population and owned only 6.2% of the land of Palestine.

When we consider the facts of who made up the population of Palestine in 1947, over two thirds were Arab, and the land ownership, only 6% of the land owned by Jews, the fact that Robert Fisk learned what he did about the large percentage of the land that today has both Arab and Jewish owners makes perfect sense. The allocation of a land as a Jewish State, we must remember, did not change underlying private land ownership, the only thing that did change was state land ownership, which did change and was turned over to the Jewish State when Israel was created in 1947/1948.

Sherri

 

[Billo_Really]

Israel did not just walk into an uninhabited land, which had no owners of the land in 1948. Prior to the ethnic cleansing in 1947 through 1949 that removed over 750,000 Arabs from Palestine, Arabs made up two thirds of the population of Palestine and Jews owned less than 10% of the land of Palestine, these facts are reported in UN documents.

It's interesting to note that jews and arabs basically got along with each other without too many incidents or conflicts for generations in that area. The big surge in violence didn't start happening until the zionists showed up. So it's safe to say, religion wasn't the issue.

Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well. For the most part, Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors. This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a “Jewish State” in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land.

 

[Lipush]

Israel did not just walk into an uninhabited land, which had no owners of the land in 1948. Prior to the ethnic cleansing in 1947 through 1949 that removed over 750,000 Arabs from Palestine, Arabs made up two thirds of the population of Palestine and Jews owned less than 10% of the land of Palestine, these facts are reported in UN documents.

It's interesting to note that jews and arabs basically got along with each other without too many incidents or conflicts for generations in that area. The big surge in violence didn't start happening until the zionists showed up. So it's safe to say, religion wasn't the issue.

Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well. For the most part, Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors. This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a “Jewish State” in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land.

WOW. what a load of nonsense! you people are not familiar with the history of the Zionists or our land, at all!

Jews and Muslims have never got together really, that is what propagandonists say and it's a complete twist of history.

First of all, the events of the 1920s, where Arabs massacred dozens of Jews and Britians, is hardly mentioned by you, ever. Those where not Zionists who were massacared, but Jews. in those years, Zionism was not an issue but in ones' minds.

What "getting along" is THAT exactly?

People say mostly that Jews were respected in Arab states, when Christians massacared them, but that will be a lie, too. The Farhud, The carnage in Tripoly, etc.

The Jews were the ones to accept the suggestion by the UN, the ARABS were the ones to reject it. THEY opened a war, Israel won!

 

[Billo_Really]

WOW. what a load of nonsense! you people are not familiar with the history of the Zionists or our land, at all!

That's the lie you keep telling yourself.

Jews and Muslims have never got together really, that is what propagandonists say and it's a complete twist of history.

Who said they "got together"?

First of all, the events of the 1920s, where Arabs massacred dozens of Jews and Britians, is hardly mentioned by you, ever. Those where not Zionists who were massacared, but Jews. in those years, Zionism was not an issue but in ones' minds.

That's a crock of shit! The Zionist Organization played a role in formulating the language in the Balfour Declaration. That goes a little beyond ones mind.

What "getting along" is THAT exactly?

Jews and arabs living side by side without all the zionist racism.

People say mostly that Jews were respected in Arab states, when Christians massacared them, but that will be a lie, too. The Farhud, The carnage in Tripoly, etc.

The violence came as a result of zionists bringing a system of racism and apartheid into the area.

A strict policy of what in today's terms would be described as racial discrimination was maintained by the Zionist Organization in this rapid advance towards the "national home". Only Jewish labour could service Jewish farms and settlements. The eventual outcome of this trend was a major outbreak of violence with unprecedented loss of life in 1929

If you weren't so fuckin' racist, there wouldn't be violence. But when you treat people like garbage, they're not going to say, "thank you", they're going to fight for their rights.

The Jews were the ones to accept the suggestion by the UN, the ARABS were the ones to reject it. THEY opened a war, Israel won!

It wasn't a suggestion. The Mandate was a law.

 

[Hossfly]

Hollie,

I am quite familiar with this popular tactic, of right wing types ,of attacking the messenger to deflect from the truth being told about events unfolding with respect to Israel. And it has really gotten old, and simply does not work anymore. It has lost its effectiveness.

Robert Fisk has worked as a journalist in Lebanon for deacades, and he has written thousands of articles for papers and written two very detailed books about the events unfloding in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East, entitled Pity The Nation and The Great War For Civilisation.

Here is what Robert Fisk reported about land ownership in Israel, pre 1948, and as I write this, I realize I was wrong about the percentage of land with an Arab and Israeli owner today, that figure is 70%, not 90%. And it is not only Israel who holds records establishing these facts, Turkey does, too.


"The Custodian of Absentee Property did not choose to discuss politics. But when I asked him how much of the land of the state of Israel might potentially have two claimants — an Arab and a Jew holding respectively a British mandate and an Israeli deed to the same property — he said he believed that ‘about 70 percent’ might fall into this category. If this figure was accurate — and it should be remembered that over half of Israel in 1948 consisted of the Negev desert — then it suggested that Arabs owned a far greater proportion of that part of Palestine which became Israel than has previously been imagined. Jacob Manor seemed unaffected by this fact. ‘Do you really believe that the Palestinians want to come back?’ he asked. ‘Most of them have died. And their children are in good positions now.’

If this extraordinary statement involved a blindness to reality, it provided no warning of the storm of anger and abuse which my series of articles in The Times was to generate among Israelis and their supporters in Britain. At some length and in careful detail I had told the story of David Damiani, Kanaan Abut Khadra, Fatima Zamzam and of another Palestinian woman, Rifka Boulos, who had lost land in Jerusalem. To visit their former homes and lands had been like touching history. For I had also told of the lives of those who now lived on or near those lands. Save for one mention of a PLO official in Beirut — the spokesman slugging champagne at the diplomatic reception — Yassir Arafat’s organisation did not receive a single reference in the thousands of words I wrote. The Times also carried a long interview with Jacob Manor. But the reaction to the articles — a series that dealt with Palestinians as individual human beings rather than as some kind of refugee caste manipulated by fanatics and ‘terrorists’ — was deeply instructive."

Robert Fisk - The Keys to Palestine

Sherri

You can call it a tactic if you wish but that does not change the fact that Fisk has a reputation (that he built himself), of slanted journalism. Fisk writing a book covering recent Middle Eastern history is really immaterial.

I think that if anyone examines geopolitics in the islamist Middle East there comes an understanding that the focal point of the myriad issues confronting the Arab/Moslem world has everything to do with the existence of Jews and a Jewish state on land considered to be an islamist waqf, Arab intransigence, an inability to compromise and an injured Arab / Moslem psyche that is still reeling from Western ascendency. Arabs / moslems were once a formidable military force and their wars of conquest and subjugation girdled the globe. The point of contention that grips the Arab / Moslem psyche and which fuels their 800 year-old grudge is the humiliating incompetence and ineptitude of theocratic totalitarianism as compared to liberal democracy. This enrages Arabs / Moslems and their wounded, adolescent pride is still suffering.

Your last sentence describes the Arab attitude that hasn't changed in centuries. It may seem a petty charge but even in this modern day and age, the smallest slight will set them off like raging hyenas. An unintentional incident concerning the Koran or a depiction of Muhammid will cause worldwide rioting. Simply a culture of people with the minds of a 2 year old. Sounds far-fetched but is an absolute fact.

 

[Lipush]

WOW. what a load of nonsense! you people are not familiar with the history of the Zionists or our land, at all!

That's the lie you keep telling yourself.

Jews and Muslims have never got together really, that is what propagandonists say and it's a complete twist of history.

Who said they "got together"?

That's a crock of shit! The Zionist Organization played a role in formulating the language in the Balfour Declaration. That goes a little beyond ones mind.

Jews and arabs living side by side without all the zionist racism.

The violence came as a result of zionists bringing a system of racism and apartheid into the area.

A strict policy of what in today's terms would be described as racial discrimination was maintained by the Zionist Organization in this rapid advance towards the "national home". Only Jewish labour could service Jewish farms and settlements. The eventual outcome of this trend was a major outbreak of violence with unprecedented loss of life in 1929

If you weren't so fuckin' racist, there wouldn't be violence. But when you treat people like garbage, they're not going to say, "thank you", they're going to fight for their rights.

The Jews were the ones to accept the suggestion by the UN, the ARABS were the ones to reject it. THEY opened a war, Israel won!

It wasn't a suggestion. The Mandate was a law.

Who said we have "got together"?

YOU DID! read what you write, for heaven's sake!

The Jews wished for a "national home", that's true. What is racist about it? wanting a Jewish state is racist?? WTF?? when Arabs say they have Muslim countries, or Arab counries, THAT Is not racist, but a "national home for the Jews" IS?? You people are so full of Jew hatred, it's not even funny!

And that was a wish that the world didn't see as legal, that is why they kept sending back Jews to work camps, once they have arrived. When my grandfather arrived to Israel because of the Nazi regime taking over Europe, he was separated from his younger brother, he didn't see him for years because one was sended away as he came, back to Cyprus.

Jews of that time didn't treat Muslims bad, they had many "potential" things in common, but they saw eachother as enemies. Jews were oppressed by the Arabs, they were KILLED by them simply for wishing independence, they were no RACISTS, they simply wanted a contry of their own. to Jew haters like YOU, it must be hard to comprehand, perhaps!!!

 

[Lipush]

The Violence against Jews in Arab states was not because of Zionism! It was because of Islam's awakening and changes in Arab regimes, In Iraq the suffering of Jews began once the Britian ruling was no longer an issue. They were moved from public positions, from their work and from their regular lives because by the eyes of the new Iraqi concept, "Jew cannot control Arabs", they were not accepted in Universities or schools or any meaningful positions, because of it. BEFORE 1948, that was in 1932.

That was what lead to the Farhud massare, also influenced by the Nazi regime, in 1941. nearly 200 Jews were killed, over 40,000 rubbed and abused. No connection to Zionism whatsoever!

 

[Hossfly]

WOW. what a load of nonsense! you people are not familiar with the history of the Zionists or our land, at all!

That's the lie you keep telling yourself.

Who said they "got together"?

That's a crock of shit! The Zionist Organization played a role in formulating the language in the Balfour Declaration. That goes a little beyond ones mind.

Jews and arabs living side by side without all the zionist racism.

The violence came as a result of zionists bringing a system of racism and apartheid into the area.

If you weren't so fuckin' racist, there wouldn't be violence. But when you treat people like garbage, they're not going to say, "thank you", they're going to fight for their rights.

The Jews were the ones to accept the suggestion by the UN, the ARABS were the ones to reject it. THEY opened a war, Israel won!

It wasn't a suggestion. The Mandate was a law.

Who said we have "got together"?

YOU DID! read what you write, for heaven's sake!

The Jews wished for a "national home", that's true. What is racist about it? wanting a Jewish state is racist?? WTF?? when Arabs say they have Muslim countries, or Arab counries, THAT Is not racist, but a "national home for the Jews" IS?? You people are so full of Jew hatred, it's not even funny!

And that was a wish that the world didn't see as legal, that is why they kept sending back Jews to work camps, once they have arrived. When my grandfather arrived to Israel because of the Nazi regime taking over Europe, he was separated from his younger brother, he didn't see him for years because one was sended away as he came, back to Cyprus.

Jews of that time didn't treat Muslims bad, they had many "potential" things in common, but they saw eachother as enemies. Jews were oppressed by the Arabs, they were KILLED by them simply for wishing independence, they were no RACISTS, they simply wanted a contry of their own. to Jew haters like YOU, it must be hard to comprehand, perhaps!!!

Trying to explain facts to a Jew hater is like trying to explain a flower to an Eskimo.It can't be done.

 

[Hollie]

You can call it a tactic if you wish but that does not change the fact that Fisk has a reputation (that he built himself), of slanted journalism. Fisk writing a book covering recent Middle Eastern history is really immaterial.

I think that if anyone examines geopolitics in the islamist Middle East there comes an understanding that the focal point of the myriad issues confronting the Arab/Moslem world has everything to do with the existence of Jews and a Jewish state on land considered to be an islamist waqf, Arab intransigence, an inability to compromise and an injured Arab / Moslem psyche that is still reeling from Western ascendency. Arabs / moslems were once a formidable military force and their wars of conquest and subjugation girdled the globe. The point of contention that grips the Arab / Moslem psyche and which fuels their 800 year-old grudge is the humiliating incompetence and ineptitude of theocratic totalitarianism as compared to liberal democracy. This enrages Arabs / Moslems and their wounded, adolescent pride is still suffering.[/QUOT

Hollie,

You can choose to buy into all the distorted truths you choose, and I can choose to believe Truth, including the truth about who Robert Fisk is, a principled and reputable journalist who has spent decades reporting on uncomfortable truths about what is really happening in the Middle East. There is such Freedom in the Truth, I can only pity those who deny it and distort it! And while there was much criticism of his reporting on the stories of the individual refugees and the 70% of the land which has both an Arab and Israeli owner, primarily because they showed the human side of the refugees, these facts were not proven to be false.


Israel did not just walk into an uninhabited land, which had no owners of the land in 1948. Prior to the ethnic cleansing in 1947 through 1949 that removed over 750,000 Arabs from Palestine, Arabs made up over two thirds of the population of Palestine and Jews owned only 6% of the land of Palestine, these facts are reported in UN documents.


"During the 25 years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewry. Over this period the Jewish population of Palestine, composed principally of immigrants, increased from less than 10 per cent in 1917 to over 30 per cent in 1947. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after the Second World War. Great Britain, as the Mandatory Power, tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. A partition scheme, a formula for provincial autonomy, a unified independent Palestine were all considered and abandoned, and in 1947, Great Britain in frustration turned the problem over to the United Nations."

"The basic conflict in Palestine is a clash of two intense nationalisms. Regardless of the historical origins of the conflict, the rights and wrongs of the promises and counter-promises, and the international intervention incident to the Mandate, there are now in Palestine some 650,000 Jews and some 1,200,000 Arabs who are dissimilar in their ways of living and, for the time being, separated by political interests which render difficult full and effective political co-operation among them, whether voluntary or induced by constitutional arrangements."

The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part II: 1947-1977 (30 June 1979)


"At the culmination of a quarter century of Mandatory rule, Palestine had been radically transformed in demographic terms. The population of Palestine had increased tremendously - from the 750,000 of the 1922 census to almost 1,850,000 at the end of 1946 - an increase of nearly 250 per cent. During this period the Jewish population had soared from 56,000 after the First World War to 84,000 in 1922 to 608,000 in 1946, an increase of about 725 per cent. 141/ From constituting less than a tenth of the population in Palestine after the First World War, the Jewish community in 1947 constituted nearly a third. A good part of this was due to births within Palestine but legal immigration alone accounted for over 376,000, with illegal immigration being estimated at another 65,000 - a total of 440,000. 142/ This Jewish population was primarily urban - about 70 per cent to 75 per cent in and around the cities of Jerusalem, Jaffa-Tel Aviv and Haifa. 143/

Land holding patterns had also changed considerably. From the 650,000 dunums held by Jewish organizations in 1920, of the total land area of 26 million dunums, the figure at the end of 1946 had reached 1,625,000 dunums - an increase of about 250 per cent 144/ and Jewish settlement had displaced large numbers of Palestinian Arab peasants. Even so, this area represented only 6.2 per cent of the total area of Palestine and 12 per cent of the cultivable land. "


The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part I: 1917-1947 (30 June 1978)


Why would the indigenous peoples be unhappy with the Partition Plan? It allocated over half of the land of Palestine to a Jewish State, when Jews made up less than one third of the population and owned only 6.2% of the land of Palestine.

When we consider the facts of who made up the population of Palestine in 1947, over two thirds were Arab, and the land ownership, only 6% of the land owned by Jews, the fact that Robert Fisk learned what he did about the large percentage of the land that today has both Arab and Jewish owners makes perfect sense. The allocation of a land as a Jewish State, we must remember, did not change underlying private land ownership, the only thing that did change was state land ownership, which did change and was turned over to the Jewish State when Israel was created in 1947/1948.

Sherri

I hope you don't feel a need to post the entirety of Fisk's book. To describe Robert Fisk as principled or with similar terms is denying that he is ridiculed by his peers as a hack. Within any profession, ridicule by ones peers is the most damaging thing that can occur.

Fisk is ridiculed ruthlessly for his creative flights of fancy and for his lack of ethics. I find it remarkable that anyone would insist that they have a monopoly on truth when their truths are derived from someone who is viewed as an embarrassment by his peers.

 

[Billo_Really]

Who said we have "got together"?

YOU DID! read what you write, for heaven's sake!

Show me where I said that! You're such a fuckin' liar.

The Jews wished for a "national home", that's true. What is racist about it? wanting a Jewish state is racist?? WTF?? when Arabs say they have Muslim countries, or Arab counries, THAT Is not racist, but a "national home for the Jews" IS?? You people are so full of Jew hatred, it's not even funny!

Your selective bullshit memory is really a hoot. Using only jewish labor, is racism. And that, was a zionist policy for land ownership in Palestine.

Keren Kayemet draft lease: Employment of Jewish labour only

"... The lessee undertakes to execute all works connected with the cultivation of the holding only with Jewish labour. Failure to comply with this duty by the employment of non-Jewish labour shall render the lessee liable to the payment of compensation ..."

"The lease also provides that the holding shall never be held by any but a Jew ..."

How is that not racist? Care to comment on that?

And that was a wish that the world didn't see as legal, that is why they kept sending back Jews to work camps, once they have arrived. When my grandfather arrived to Israel because of the Nazi regime taking over Europe, he was separated from his younger brother, he didn't see him for years because one was sended away as he came, back to Cyprus.

That doesn't mean it's okay to treat the Palestinian's like garbage.

Jews of that time didn't treat Muslims bad, they had many "potential" things in common, but they saw eachother as enemies. Jews were oppressed by the Arabs, they were KILLED by them simply for wishing independence, they were no RACISTS, they simply wanted a contry of their own. to Jew haters like YOU, it must be hard to comprehand, perhaps!!!

If jews didn't treat the arabs bad, then how do you explain the following comment regarding the treatment of the arabs by the jews?

the settlers must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the natives ... 'Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite! Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in unrestricted freedom and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination ...'

Ahad Ha'am, Zionist humanist

Go ahead, let's see you spin that!

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Israel did not just walk into an uninhabited land, which had no owners of the land in 1948. Prior to the ethnic cleansing in 1947 through 1949 that removed over 750,000 Arabs from Palestine, Arabs made up two thirds of the population of Palestine and Jews owned less than 10% of the land of Palestine, these facts are reported in UN documents.

It's interesting to note that jews and arabs basically got along with each other without too many incidents or conflicts for generations in that area. The big surge in violence didn't start happening until the zionists showed up. So it's safe to say, religion wasn't the issue.

Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well. For the most part, Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors. This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a “Jewish State” in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land.

loinboy,

That the people generally got along before the racist Zionist Movement was born is also what Archbishop Elias Chacour writes about in his book Blood Brothers.

From the Back Cover

Is it possible to live at peace in the midst of conflict?

"From my perspective, both as a believer and as a diplomat, I take hope and comfort in knowing that amid all the hatred, destruction, and death, Father Chacour continues his patient work, softening one heart at a time."
James A. Baker III, U.S. Secretary of State, 1989-1992

As a child, Elias Chacour lived in a small Palestinian village in Galilee. The townspeople were proud of their ancient Christian heritage and lived at peace with their Jewish neighbors. But in 1948 and '49 their idyllic lifestyle was swept away as tens of thousands of Palestinians were killed and nearly one million forced into refugee camps.

An exile in his native land, Elias began a years-long struggle with his love for the Jewish people and the world's misunderstanding of his own people, the Palestinians. How was he to respond? He found his answer in the simple, haunting words of the Man of Galilee: "Blessed are the peacemakers."

In Blood Brothers, Chacour blends his riveting life story with historical research to reveal a little-known side of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the birth of modern Israel. He touches on controversial questions such as:

" What behind-the-scenes politics touched off the turmoil in the Middle East?
" What does Bible prophecy really have to say?
" Can bitter enemies ever be reconciled?

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Brothers-Elias-Chacour/dp/0800793218/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341065351&sr=1-1&keywords=blood+brothers[/ame]

And I read these moving words from a man who met the author of this book, the author who is now the Archbishop of the Melkite Church in the Galillee.

"I have had the extreme honor of meeting Elias Chacour after I read this book. I stayed with him in his village of Ibillin in Galilee. While there we spoke every evening, often late into the night about the struggles and hardships that both sides have faced in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is very committed to doing everything he can to better his people's situations while also defending the Jews and their claim to the land as well. He in no way is anti-Israel, or anti-Jew. As he says, we all come from the same God, from the same Mother and Father, and from the same land.

I saw the ruins of his village, which he is not allowed to move back to. I saw the graves of his mother and father. I saw the church that he describes so well as the place that saved him. But, more importantly, I saw a new side of this conflict. I no longer saw the Arabs as savages and terrorists that were trying to steal the land from the Jews, but rather as a race of people who is enduring the same oppression that the Jews faced for centuries.

Elias Chacour is a holy man who just wants peace between these two races. This book is telling a side of the story that so often is hidden from the Western World. If you a person who is interested in opening his/her eyes to the real issues that are stopping peace from becoming reality and not just an ideal - then you need to read this book."

Sherri

 

[Billo_Really]

I hope you don't feel a need to post the entirety of Fisk's book. To describe Robert Fisk as principled or with similar terms is denying that he is ridiculed by his peers as a hack. Within any profession, ridicule by ones peers is the most damaging thing that can occur.

Fisk is ridiculed ruthlessly for his creative flights of fancy and for his lack of ethics. I find it remarkable that anyone would insist that they have a monopoly on truth when their truths are derived from someone who is viewed as an embarrassment by his peers.

Ad hominems are not valid rebuttal's.

 

[Hossfly]

That's the lie you keep telling yourself.

Who said they "got together"?

That's a crock of shit! The Zionist Organization played a role in formulating the language in the Balfour Declaration. That goes a little beyond ones mind.

Jews and arabs living side by side without all the zionist racism.

The violence came as a result of zionists bringing a system of racism and apartheid into the area.

If you weren't so fuckin' racist, there wouldn't be violence. But when you treat people like garbage, they're not going to say, "thank you", they're going to fight for their rights.

It wasn't a suggestion. The Mandate was a law.

Who said we have "got together"?

YOU DID! read what you write, for heaven's sake!

The Jews wished for a "national home", that's true. What is racist about it? wanting a Jewish state is racist?? WTF?? when Arabs say they have Muslim countries, or Arab counries, THAT Is not racist, but a "national home for the Jews" IS?? You people are so full of Jew hatred, it's not even funny!

And that was a wish that the world didn't see as legal, that is why they kept sending back Jews to work camps, once they have arrived. When my grandfather arrived to Israel because of the Nazi regime taking over Europe, he was separated from his younger brother, he didn't see him for years because one was sended away as he came, back to Cyprus.

Jews of that time didn't treat Muslims bad, they had many "potential" things in common, but they saw eachother as enemies. Jews were oppressed by the Arabs, they were KILLED by them simply for wishing independence, they were no RACISTS, they simply wanted a contry of their own. to Jew haters like YOU, it must be hard to comprehand, perhaps!!!

Trying to explain facts to a Jew hater is like trying to explain a flower to an Eskimo.It can't be done.

By "explaining a flower", I meant explaining the color,texture, smell of something an Eskimo has never seen or imagined. That's how truth is to many here.