Israel attacks civilians

[Hollie]

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.

You can do your on research and discover the reactions to Fisk by his peers. so much of his work is discredited as biased and unverifiable, to cite him as a holder of "truth" is to accept his biases.

I can understand that you want to believe him because you find a resonance with his views. You also need to understand that others are free to point out that if you only accept the views of those with a reputation for being a hack, that calls into question your credibility, also.

 

[Billo_Really]

You can do your on research and discover the reactions to Fisk by his peers. so much of his work is discredited as biased and unverifiable, to cite him as a holder of "truth" is to accept his biases.

I can understand that you want to believe him because you find a resonance with his views. You also need to understand that others are free to point out that if you only accept the views of those with a reputation for being a hack, that calls into question your credibility, also.

You certainly don't add credibility when all you can muster is killing the messenger. If you can't specifically address what was said and provide evidence to the contrary, everything you're saying is just smoke and mirrors.

State 3 things Fisk said that isn't true and why?

 

[Billo_Really]

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

Care to explain why you think I hate jews?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

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.

Hollie,

I am proud when I am vilified by Zionists like you, I am exalted and lifted up and I am on the top of the world. Keep it coming, your hate shows me I am doing exactly what God is calling me to do, to speak truth, to keep speaking truth, and to confront injustice with truth. I would not be surprised but that Robert Fisk feels much the same way I do about you and others like you, but I do not speak for him, a man many in our world choose to view in a positive light.

I am not aware I have posted any of Robert Fisk's two books, and I do not plan to, I referenced an article. And he is not saying anything others have not said, only confirming what others have said. In my last post, I presented excerpts from two documents from the UN UNISPAL website that show us when Israel was created Jews there only owned 6.2% of the land in Palestine. None of that evidence comes from Robert Fisk.

And here is more evidence of the substantial Arab land ownership of what is today Israel and Palestine, from records of pre 1948. (keep in mind when you read this, documents can be addressing different areas, they can address the whole region of British Mandate Palestine or just Israel, and Israel's borders may be viewed differently, as well)

-The CCP Refugee Office estimated that although only a little more than a quarter was considered cultivable, more than 80 percent of Israel's total area of 20,850 km.sq. represented land abandoned by the Arab refugees. Three-quarters of the former Arab land was sub-marginal land or semi-desert in the Negeb.
(The Establishment of the State of Israel as a Jewish State from Chapter I in: Israel –An Apartheid State, by Uri Davis, Zed Books, London and New Jersey, 1987)

-“The vast properties defined under the Absentee Property Law (1950) as 'absentee property' can be further assessed if one recalls that, until 1947, individual or corporate Jewish land ownership in Palestine did not exceed 7 percent, or 10 percent of the territories that came under Israeli rule and occupation following the 1948-9 war. Of the remainder, according to the Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property, almost 70 percent of the territory of pre-1967 Israel consists of land classified as 'absentee property':
The Custodian of Absentee Property does not choose to discuss politics. But when asked 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 - Mr. Manor [the Custodian in 1980] believes that 'about 70 percent' might fall into that category (Robert Fisk, 'The Land of Palestine, Part Eight: The Custodian of Absentee Property', The Times, 24 December, 1980)”
(same source as the first one)

- The total area of Palestine is 26,320,505 dunums. According to the Survey of Palestine prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American committee of inquiry by the British Mandate for the United Nations prior to proposing the 1947 partition plan P. 566, 94.22 percent of the total area of Palestine belongs to Arabs and other non-Jews; 5.8 percent belonged to Jews. The majority of Arab owned land in Palestine was uncultivable (16,925,805 dunums).

- Subcommittee 2 of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question stated in its report to the United Nations General Assembly the following:
Closely connected with the distribution of population is the factor of land ownership in the proposed Jewish State. The bulk of the land in the Arab State, as well as in the proposed Jewish State, is owned and possessed by Arabs. This is clear from the following statistics furnished to the Sub-Committee by the United Kingdom representative, showing the respective percentages of Arab and Jewish ownership of land in the various sub-districts of Palestine.
(Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question, Summary Records of Meetings, 25 September-25 November, 1947, pp. 292-293.)

-Although about half of the total are of Palestine is the Negev area which a considerable amount of is either desert or unfit for cultivation, Arabs owned the vast majority of it. According to the UNCCP working paper prepared by the commission’s land expert on the methods and techniques of identification and valuation of Arab refugee immovable property holdings in Israel, the Negev lands belonged to the Palestinian Arabs even though many of it was uncultivable. see Paragraph 15
Link:

A/AC.25/W.84 of 28 April 1964

- the British Mandate records affirm that 12,600,000 Dunums of Negev land belonged to the Bedouins (Arabs).
(Mandate records 1937. See Penny Maddrell, The Beduin of the Negev, Minority Rights Group, Report no.81 (1990) p.5)

- In a Progress report of the United Nations Consolation Committee for Palestine (UNCCP) dated 20 November 1951, the following was stated:

“The total extent of the abandoned land which has passed to Jewish hands is estimated by the Commission's Refugee Office at 16,324 square kilometers and its total value at £P 100 million."

In other words, of “Israel”’s total area of 20,850 km.sq, 16,324 Km.sq. (almost 78% of “Israel”) was land abandoned by Arabs according to the UNCCP.
Concerning the Negev, the document stated:

“In the Negev, 12,138 square kilometers have changed hands [land formerly held by Arabs, now by Jews], of which 10,303 square kilometers are uncultivable and 1,835 square kilometers are cultivable.”
(A/1985 of 20 November 1951
Annex A, Paragraph 1.)

- UN document dated 3 September 1947 the Report of the General assembly was discussing several issues relating to the Palestine question such as the elements of the conflict, religious sites, and different proposed solutions. Among the issues discussed was “the conflicting claims” in which both the Arab and the Jewish claim to the issue is presented, followed by an appraisal by the U.N. expressing it’s opinion and analysis of each claim. Under the appraisal of the Arab claim Paragraph 164 the following is stated:

The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have severely restricted the Jewish efforts to acquire new land.
(A/364 of 3 September 1947
Paragraph 164)

umkahlil: Zionist and Palestinian Land Ownership, 1945

Sherri

 

[Billo_Really]

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!

That has nothing to do with the Palestinian's.

 

[Hollie]

You can do your on research and discover the reactions to Fisk by his peers. so much of his work is discredited as biased and unverifiable, to cite him as a holder of "truth" is to accept his biases.

I can understand that you want to believe him because you find a resonance with his views. You also need to understand that others are free to point out that if you only accept the views of those with a reputation for being a hack, that calls into question your credibility, also.

You certainly don't add credibility when all you can muster is killing the messenger. If you can't specifically address what was said and provide evidence to the contrary, everything you're saying is just smoke and mirrors.

State 3 things Fisk said that isn't true and why?

I don't have his book and I'm not going to willing accept his statements as true based upon selected pieces posted In the thread. And I certainly do have a reason to view his work with a critical eye as opposed to blind acceptance. Why don't you state 3 things you believe are true and corroborate his work?

 

[Hossfly]

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

Care to explain why you think I hate jews?

Sure thing. Like others here you avoid anything that could be construed as 'Jew hate', therefore you turn your animosity toward Zionists. Since Jews are Zionists by design, birth and heritage my charge is valid. Your turn.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

You can do your on research and discover the reactions to Fisk by his peers. so much of his work is discredited as biased and unverifiable, to cite him as a holder of "truth" is to accept his biases.

I can understand that you want to believe him because you find a resonance with his views. You also need to understand that others are free to point out that if you only accept the views of those with a reputation for being a hack, that calls into question your credibility, also.

You certainly don't add credibility when all you can muster is killing the messenger. If you can't specifically address what was said and provide evidence to the contrary, everything you're saying is just smoke and mirrors.

State 3 things Fisk said that isn't true and why?

I don't have his book and I'm not going to willing accept his statements as true based upon selected pieces posted In the thread. And I certainly do have a reason to view his work with a critical eye as opposed to blind acceptance. Why don't you state 3 things you believe are true and corroborate his work?

Hollie,

In my last post, there is one document after another corroborating as true what Robert Fisk reported was said to him by the Israeli Land Official.

Here is some of that evidence, restated and explained.

Robert Fisk reported over 70% of land in Israel has an Arab and Jewish owner.

UN organizations set the figure at 78%.

In a Progress report of the United Nations Consolation Committee for Palestine (UNCCP) dated 20 November 1951, the following was stated:

“The total extent of the abandoned land which has passed to Jewish hands is estimated by the Commission's Refugee Office at 16,324 square kilometers and its total value at £P 100 million."

In other words, of “Israel”’s total area of 20,850 km.sq, 16,324 Km.sq. (almost 78% of “Israel”) was land abandoned by Arabs according to the UNCCP

umkahlil: Zionist and Palestinian Land Ownership, 1945

Sherri

 

[Hollie]

You certainly don't add credibility when all you can muster is killing the messenger. If you can't specifically address what was said and provide evidence to the contrary, everything you're saying is just smoke and mirrors.

State 3 things Fisk said that isn't true and why?

I don't have his book and I'm not going to willing accept his statements as true based upon selected pieces posted In the thread. And I certainly do have a reason to view his work with a critical eye as opposed to blind acceptance. Why don't you state 3 things you believe are true and corroborate his work?

Hollie,

In my last post, there is one document after another corroborating as true what Robert Fisk reported was said to him by the Israeli Land Official.

Here is some of that evidence, restated and explained.

Robert Fisk reported over 70% of land in Israel has an Arab and Jewish owner.

UN organizations set the figure at 78%.

In a Progress report of the United Nations Consolation Committee for Palestine (UNCCP) dated 20 November 1951, the following was stated:

“The total extent of the abandoned land which has passed to Jewish hands is estimated by the Commission's Refugee Office at 16,324 square kilometers and its total value at £P 100 million."

In other words, of “Israel”’s total area of 20,850 km.sq, 16,324 Km.sq. (almost 78% of “Israel”) was land abandoned by Arabs according to the UNCCP

umkahlil: Zionist and Palestinian Land Ownership, 1945

Sherri

The bulk of your post appears to come from someone's personal blog. Terms such as "Zionist" make me suspicious of such sources. Claims that Robert Fisk is a credible journalist combined with the preceding leads me to use a great deal of caution with blindly accepting what comes from someone's blog.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

I don't have his book and I'm not going to willing accept his statements as true based upon selected pieces posted In the thread. And I certainly do have a reason to view his work with a critical eye as opposed to blind acceptance. Why don't you state 3 things you believe are true and corroborate his work?

Hollie,

In my last post, there is one document after another corroborating as true what Robert Fisk reported was said to him by the Israeli Land Official.

Here is some of that evidence, restated and explained.

Robert Fisk reported over 70% of land in Israel has an Arab and Jewish owner.

UN organizations set the figure at 78%.

In a Progress report of the United Nations Consolation Committee for Palestine (UNCCP) dated 20 November 1951, the following was stated:

“The total extent of the abandoned land which has passed to Jewish hands is estimated by the Commission's Refugee Office at 16,324 square kilometers and its total value at £P 100 million."

In other words, of “Israel”’s total area of 20,850 km.sq, 16,324 Km.sq. (almost 78% of “Israel”) was land abandoned by Arabs according to the UNCCP

umkahlil: Zionist and Palestinian Land Ownership, 1945

Sherri

The bulk of your post appears to come from someone's personal blog. Terms such as "Zionist" make me suspicious of such sources. Claims that Robert Fisk is a credible journalist combined with the preceding leads me to use a great deal of caution with blindly accepting what comes from someone's blog.

Hollie,

There are references and links to documents included, UN documents and other sources, not blogs, if you are too lazy to take the time go to them and to read them, it sounds like you are simply someone closing your eyes to the truth right in front of you.

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote about people like you, in a jail cell he wrote of the silence to injustice surrounding a society and the evil of that apathy and silence in the face of injustice.

The US funds the Occupation, so this conflict and the atrocities carried out in the Occupation has everything in the world to do with America and Americans.

Sherri

 

[Hollie]

Hollie,

In my last post, there is one document after another corroborating as true what Robert Fisk reported was said to him by the Israeli Land Official.

Here is some of that evidence, restated and explained.

Robert Fisk reported over 70% of land in Israel has an Arab and Jewish owner.

UN organizations set the figure at 78%.

In a Progress report of the United Nations Consolation Committee for Palestine (UNCCP) dated 20 November 1951, the following was stated:

“The total extent of the abandoned land which has passed to Jewish hands is estimated by the Commission's Refugee Office at 16,324 square kilometers and its total value at £P 100 million."

In other words, of “Israel”’s total area of 20,850 km.sq, 16,324 Km.sq. (almost 78% of “Israel”) was land abandoned by Arabs according to the UNCCP

umkahlil: Zionist and Palestinian Land Ownership, 1945

Sherri

The bulk of your post appears to come from someone's personal blog. Terms such as "Zionist" make me suspicious of such sources. Claims that Robert Fisk is a credible journalist combined with the preceding leads me to use a great deal of caution with blindly accepting what comes from someone's blog.

Hollie,

There are references and links to documents included, UN documents and other sources, not blogs, if you are too lazy to take the time go to them and to read them, it sounds like you are simply someone closing your eyes to the truth right in front of you.

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote about people like you, in a jail cell he wrote of the silence to injustice surrounding a society and the evil of that apathy and silence in the face of injustice.

The US funds the Occupation, so this conflict and the atrocities carried out in the Occupation has everything in the world to do with America and Americans.

Sherri

Ah, yes. We've come to "people like you".

My caution with blindly accepting what people past on a message board shouldn't cause such alarm on your part. You began with glowing praise of a journalist who is roundly criticized for producing false and invented claims. Instead if posting links to UN or other sources, you post a link to someone's blog. That blog appears to scream out " agenda".

I don't accept your "you people" slight for simply not rolling over and accepting your posted links as unalterable fact.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The bulk of your post appears to come from someone's personal blog. Terms such as "Zionist" make me suspicious of such sources. Claims that Robert Fisk is a credible journalist combined with the preceding leads me to use a great deal of caution with blindly accepting what comes from someone's blog.

Hollie,

There are references and links to documents included, UN documents and other sources, not blogs, if you are too lazy to take the time go to them and to read them, it sounds like you are simply someone closing your eyes to the truth right in front of you.

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote about people like you, in a jail cell he wrote of the silence to injustice surrounding a society and the evil of that apathy and silence in the face of injustice.

The US funds the Occupation, so this conflict and the atrocities carried out in the Occupation has everything in the world to do with America and Americans.

Sherri

Ah, yes. We've come to "people like you".

My caution with blindly accepting what people past on a message board shouldn't cause such alarm on your part. You began with glowing praise of a journalist who is roundly criticized for producing false and invented claims. Instead if posting links to UN or other sources, you post a link to someone's blog. That blog appears to scream out " agenda".

I don't accept your "you people" slight for simply not rolling over and accepting your posted links as unalterable fact.

Hollie,

You seem to have no ability to address the issues raised by this conflict.

You just keep finding excuses to avoid addressing the issues raised.

Why are you here?

And one more time, I give you an opportunity to address substantive issues.

Source after source tells us 70% or more of the land in Israel still has an Arab owner. Under international law, these owners of the land have a clear right to return to their lands. Explain why they should be denied their rights under international law.

Sherri

 

[Billo_Really]

I don't have his book and I'm not going to willing accept his statements as true based upon selected pieces posted In the thread. And I certainly do have a reason to view his work with a critical eye as opposed to blind acceptance. Why don't you state 3 things you believe are true and corroborate his work?

So what you're saying is, you think things for no reason to think'em. You voiced your objection to claims he made, yet you cannot state what claims you were objecting to. If you are not going to accept his statements as true, then you must have evidence that prove those specific statements as being false.

You only consider the source to be prudent. You don't base the entire truth of falsehood of a claim, soley on the source from which it came. That's just dumb!

 

[Hossfly]

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

Care to explain why you think I hate jews?

Sure thing. Like others here you avoid anything that could be construed as 'Jew hate', therefore you turn your animosity toward Zionists. Since Jews are Zionists by design, birth and heritage my charge is valid. Your turn.

Does Loinboy have any comments for the explanation he asked for?

 

[Billo_Really]

Sure thing. Like others here you avoid anything that could be construed as 'Jew hate', therefore you turn your animosity toward Zionists. Since Jews are Zionists by design, birth and heritage my charge is valid. Your turn.

What did I avoid, that is construed as "jew-hate"? And explain what my animosity towards zionists, has anything to do with judaism? And you still haven't answered why I would hate jews.

 

[Billo_Really]

Does Loinboy have any comments for the explanation he asked for?

See above.

 

[Billo_Really]

Ah, yes. We've come to "people like you".

My caution with blindly accepting what people past on a message board shouldn't cause such alarm on your part. You began with glowing praise of a journalist who is roundly criticized for producing false and invented claims. Instead if posting links to UN or other sources, you post a link to someone's blog. That blog appears to scream out " agenda".

I don't accept your "you people" slight for simply not rolling over and accepting your posted links as unalterable fact.

I posted links to the UN and you didn't comment on those.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie,

There are references and links to documents included, UN documents and other sources, not blogs, if you are too lazy to take the time go to them and to read them, it sounds like you are simply someone closing your eyes to the truth right in front of you.

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote about people like you, in a jail cell he wrote of the silence to injustice surrounding a society and the evil of that apathy and silence in the face of injustice.

The US funds the Occupation, so this conflict and the atrocities carried out in the Occupation has everything in the world to do with America and Americans.

Sherri

Ah, yes. We've come to "people like you".

My caution with blindly accepting what people past on a message board shouldn't cause such alarm on your part. You began with glowing praise of a journalist who is roundly criticized for producing false and invented claims. Instead if posting links to UN or other sources, you post a link to someone's blog. That blog appears to scream out " agenda".

I don't accept your "you people" slight for simply not rolling over and accepting your posted links as unalterable fact.

Hollie,

You seem to have no ability to address the issues raised by this conflict.

You just keep finding excuses to avoid addressing the issues raised.

Why are you here?

And one more time, I give you an opportunity to address substabtive issues.

Source after source tells us 70% or more of the land in Israel still has an Arab owner. Under international law, these owners of the land have a clear right to return to their lands. Expalin why they should be denied their rights under international law.

Sherri

You insist that your claims are inarguable and that we have option but to accept them. You will have to accept that not everyone will be bullied by those tactics.

And one more time I feel a need to explain that your posting of selected paragraphs that derive from someone's personal blog are not cause for blind acceptance as ultimate fact.

 

[Billo_Really]

You insist that your claims are inarguable and that we have option but to accept them. You will have to accept that not everyone will be bullied by those tactics.

And one more time I feel a need to explain that your posting of selected paragraphs that derive from someone's personal blog are not cause for blind acceptance as ultimate fact.

Where did she say her claims are "inarguable"?

From what I see, she just said you refuse to address them. So you're the one who is choosing not to argue. That's not her fault.

 

[Hollie]

You insist that your claims are inarguable and that we have option but to accept them. You will have to accept that not everyone will be bullied by those tactics.

And one more time I feel a need to explain that your posting of selected paragraphs that derive from someone's personal blog are not cause for blind acceptance as ultimate fact.

Where did she say her claims are "inarguable"?

From what I see, she just said you refuse to address them. So you're the one who is choosing not to argue. That's not her fault.

You're not seeing well. The attitude is that because there ate links posted to someone's personal blog, I'm somehow tasked with disproving the blog contents or else I'm somehow one of "people like you"

Well sorry, I don't have a need to disprove the content of someone's blog.