Israel the Monster: Mass-murder of Innocents

[toomuchtime_]

Toomuchtime

The irony in all your posts is that you seek to delegitimise the claim of thousands of arabs who lived in Western Palestine for a few years before the creation of Israel in order to legitimize the claim of thousands of jews who lived in Western Palestine for a few years before the creation of Israel.



What the **** is that, buddy?

A crazy competition to determine who lived in Palestine for the shortest period of time before 1948?

-----------------------------------------------------------

I take it from your answer that you believe not having an historical connection to the land, ie, only having been there for a few years before leaving in 1948, delegitimizes the claim for a right to return for such Arabs, and for some reason you think this is what I also believe. In fact, I was trying to find out if you had ever really thought this issue through. In several posts, including the one I was responding to, you have claimed your support for the right of return is based on your respect of the Palestinians' historical connection with his/her homeland, so had it never occurred to you that a large number of the Arabs claiming this right of return had no such connection with the land? When you said your support for the right of return was based on this presumed historical connection, had you just made an honest mistake about how many of the Arabs had such a connection? Were you only supporting this right of return for those Arabs who had such a connection, and if so, were you aware that your position was very different from the position of the Arabs who support a right of return for all who qualify under the UN definition of a refugee?

In fact, this matter of a historical connection to the land, is important to you, not to me, or at least it seems to be from your posts. To my mind, the relevant fact is that most Arabs did not leave Israel on the eve of the invasion, and given the climate of the times, the fact that Arab leaders were calling on the Arabs to leave and promising to give them Jewish properties after Israel was defeated, it is a fair presumption that those who left were in sympathy with the enemy and any support for an enemy in time of war may fairly be called an act of treason against the new state of Israel, and it is not unreasonable to expect that those who took the unusual action of leaving on the eve of war would be able to document the fact that they did not leave to make common cause with the enemy if they had not and always planned to come back to the Jewish state of Israel.

Would requiring those Arabs who wanted to return to document the fact they had not left to support the enemy mean that some who had left only to protect their families from the fighting? Certainly, but should Israel have allowed those who had left to support the enemy, traitors, and might again support Israel's enemies back in and jeopardize the lives of Israeli citizens to prevent some other Arabs from being treated unfairly? I don't think so.

 

[DavidS]

Yep, but the thousands of euro jews who founded the modern state of Israel were about as Palestinians as Puff Daddy.

Again...

This is not relevant in 2008/2009.

The children and grandchildren of those euro jews are now as Palestinians as any arab whose family lived there for 400 years.

No one has the right to demand that they leave the only place they call home.

There are many descendants of those who actually lived in ancient Israel. They're called Sephardic Jews. Many of them live in Israel.

 

[del]

There are many descendants of those who actually lived in ancient Israel. They're called Sephardic Jews. Many of them live in Israel.

 

[Sunni Man]

There are many descendants of those who actually lived in ancient Israel. They're called Sephardic Jews. Many of them live in Israel.

OK then DavidS

About 10% of Israeli Jews are Sephardic Jews

Let's kick out the 90% Ashkenazi Jews that have NO historical connection to the land.

I am sure the Palestanian people would agree to a One State solution based on this action.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Angel Heart
Pallywood at it's best. Pathetic sheep the lot of ya.

Angel, did you even bother to read my last two posts?

I said it doesn't matter if an euro jew arrived in Palestine 5 minutes before the Knesset declared Israel's Independence, his/her offspring are Palestinian jews, that is, natives of the land for all practical purposes.

I would go one step further and say that the palestinian shitheads who insist that all the jews who arrived in Palestine after the Zionist movement got going must leave must be neutralised before the peaceful dismantlement of Israel can be considered.

Oh I see, you labeled me a pro-palestinian poster just like they do with supermarket products. You don't even bother to read what I write anymore.

It's a pity you're unable to see, I'm not pro-palestinian but pro-equality.

 

[José]

toomuchtime

A little known fact is that many jews fled jewish colonies in Eastern Palestine on the eve of the 1948 war.

It's a fair assumption that most of the jewish refugees supported the creation of Israel and most of the palestinians opposed it.

A much more contentious issue is the interpretation of their displacement as an act of support or treason against the state of Israel. I don't see how you can advance a military cause by fleeing the battlefield.

I see them as jewish and arab civilians running away from a warzone.

 

[José]

Originally posted by DiveCon
so, they can live in peace with Israel anywhere they chose to live in PEACE
let them stop lobbing rockets and this would never happen

DiveCon

I remember an interview with Ahmed Yassin in which the interviewer asked him why he wouldn’t agree with the latest Israeli peace plan.

Far from me to support an islamist like Yassin. Just like religious jews, they are part of the problem in Palestine, not the solution. This is just an example:

Sheik Yassin: This is an empty peace proposal because the Zionists don’t address our right to live in our land.

Yassin expressed one of the biggest hurdles to achieve peace in Palestine.

What should happen first?

Must Palestinians end their armed struggle BEFORE Israel promises them they will have the right to move freely in their homeland in the next 10 or 20 years after a process of healing and reconciliation?

Or Israel, as the stronger party, must promise Palestinians will have this right in the long term BEFORE Palestinians end their armed struggle?

I fully understand both positions:

It’s ludicrous to demand that Palestinians, a pathetically weak third world people, end their armed struggle without a single promise that they will have this right respected someday in the future and with all the major world powers together with Israel insisting they won’t.

But I also understand that it is absolutely impossible to even start negotiations about the long term democratization of Palestine when one of the ethnicities is engaged in an armed struggle.

When you think about it, the biggest obstacle to the end of the palestinian armed struggle and the democratization of Palestine is the lack of a fair answer to this question:

WHO DOES WHAT FIRST?

 

[toomuchtime_]

toomuchtime

I said in a previous post that people should avoid debating facts because this leads to the demoralization of the debater in the eyes of their peers.

So now it’s time to follow my own advice.

It is a fact that thousands of arabs immigrated to Palestine during the first half of the last century and specially during the years that preceded the creation of Israel.

If I have to deny this historical fact in order to support democracy in Palestine then I’d prefer jewish racism.

There were two main reasons behind the influx of arabs into Palestine, one economic and one political:

The economic reason was the surge in agricultural/industrial activity that followed the immigration of European jews to Palestine.

Arabs moved to Palestine during the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s more or less like Mexicans move to America these days.

The political reason that led many arabs to live in Palestine is the fact that somewhere during the 30’s and 40’s both sides realized that the future of Palestine would be defined by the people living there.

So a demographic race between jews and arabs started.

Your assertion is absolutely right. There is a number of arabs who lived in Palestine for a couple of years before the creation of Israel and an even greater number of European jews.

There are two problems with your argument:

First problem:

You are trying to delegitimise the right of Palestinian arabs to live in Western Palestine but the tool you’re using to go about it (arabs who lived less than 2 years in Palestine) does not fit this purpose.

From the 600.000 arabs who left Western Palestine during the creation of Israel, more than 400.000 have legitimate proof they lived in Western Palestine for at least one generation.

Second (and most important) problem:

It doesn’t matter if a given European jew and a given arab lived in Western Palestine for one week, two years or half a century.

The fact is that their descendants think about Palestine as their national home.

How long their parents or grandparents spent in Palestine is immaterial now.

The Palestinian people don’t have the right to demand that an Israeli jew leave Western Palestine just because their grandparents arrived there in 1947.

And Israeli jews can't deny the right of a Palestinian to live in Western Palestine for similar reasons.

In their minds, Western Palestine is their national home regardless of how long their jewish/arab relatives lived there.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I appreciate your very detailed response to my post, but you are mistaken to think I was making any argument, much less one intended to delegitamize the right of return for any of the Arabs. I was simply asking you if when you stated that your support for the right of return was based on this presumed historical connection with their homeland you were aware that a large number of the Arabs who claimed this right had no such historical connection with the land, and if you were not aware of this fact, would you now support their claim to a right to return anyway, and if so, on what basis. I made no argument, but simply asked a lot of questions.

If I understand you correctly, you have now moved from claiming the right of return is based on an historical connection with the land of Israel, to claiming it is based on merely thinking of it as your national homeland even if you and your family never had an historical connection with the land. Even the Arab negotiators have never claimed such a sweeping right of return.

Nonetheless, I would argue there is no right of return on an entirely different basis. The important issue to my mind is not how long your family may have lived in the land of Israel, but whether they left on the eve of war as an overt act of support for the invading armies, an act of treason against the newly created sovereign state of Israel. Of course, it would be difficult to determine if leaving had been to support the enemy in time of war, treason, but given the climate of the times, the fact that tiny Israel was surrounded by 100,000,000 Arabs screaming for its destruction, that it was fighting daily skirmishes on all fronts to protect its borders that were killing Israelis every day, it was incumbent upon the Israeli government to be prudent in determining whether or not leaving was for the purpose of supporting the enemy, and prudence would dictate that it should be regarded so unless the individual could document the fact that it was not. If you left and could not prove it wasn't to support the enemy, you had no right to make any claim on the state of Israel and if you stayed, you were a citizen of Israel with full rights regardless of whether your family had been there for centuries or for hours. That was the position the state of Israel took, and I believe it was the right one. All these issues were resolved back then and none are left to be resolved now.

 

[DiveCon]

DiveCon

I remember an interview with Ahmed Yassin in which the interviewer asked him why he wouldn’t agree with the latest Israeli peace plan.

Far from me to support an islamist like Yassin. Just like religious jews, they are part of the problem in Palestine, not the solution. This is just an example:

Sheik Yassin: This is an empty peace proposal because the Zionists don’t address our right to live in our land.

Yassin expressed one of the biggest hurdles to achieve peace in Palestine.

What should happen first?

Must Palestinians end their armed struggle BEFORE Israel promises them they will have the right to move freely in their homeland in the next 10 or 20 years after a process of healing and reconciliation?

Or Israel, as the stronger party, must promise Palestinians will have this right in the long term BEFORE Palestinians end their armed struggle?

I fully understand both positions:

It’s ludicrous to demand that Palestinians, a pathetically weak third world people, end their armed struggle without a single promise that they will have this right respected someday in the future and with all the major world powers together with Israel insisting they won’t.

But I also understand that it is absolutely impossible to even start negotiations about the long term democratization of Palestine when one of the ethnicities is engaged in an armed struggle.

When you think about it, the biggest obstacle to the end of the palestinian armed struggle and the democratization of Palestine is the lack of a fair answer to this question:

WHO DOES WHAT FIRST?

just as i said
stop lobbing the ******* rockets
you think Israel should even talk to assholes while they are lobbing rockets?


i dont

 

[toomuchtime_]

toomuchtime

A little known fact is that many jews fled jewish colonies in Eastern Palestine on the eve of the 1948 war.

It's a fair assumption that most of the jewish refugees supported the creation of Israel and most of the palestinians opposed it.

A much more contentious issue is the interpretation of their displacement as an act of support or treason against the state of Israel. I don't see how you can advance a military cause by fleeing the battlefield.

I see them as jewish and arab civilians running away from a warzone.

---------------------------------------------------------------

As you probably know, the initial Arab assaults began before Israel declared statehood, and there were initial retreats from some positions in the east before the Israeli offensive began. Perhaps that is what you are referring to, but the Jews who fled to not go behind enemy lines, of course. The Arabs who left did go behind enemy lines, and once the Israeli offensive began, they found they had left the relative safety of Israel to move into the middle of the battlefield.

The first and most important responsibility of any government is to protect the safety and security of its citizens against threats internal and external. Certainly it was not possible to determine in every case if those who left did so as acts of support for the enemies about to attack the new state of Israel, but as one reads about these times, one cannot help but to be struck by how readily these Arabs responded to the calls of enemy governments to leave Israel, at how organized these the departures were, not individual families but caravan of trucks and buses carrying thousands of them at a time, and at how warmly they were greeted by the enemy armies about to invade Israel. If treason is too strong a term in some of these cases, then certainly by going behind enemy lines for protection provided ample reason to consider them disloyal and security risks, and in those dangerous times, tiny Israel could ill afford to admit 600,000 security risks.

To my mind the most generous thing Israel could for the Arabs who left that was consistent with providing for the safety and security of its people, was to offer the Arabs who left the opportunity to try to prove they had done nothing disloyal by leaving, but of course, this was very difficult to do.

 

[José]

Originally posted by toomuchtime
I appreciate your very detailed response to my post, but you are mistaken to think I was making any argument, much less one intended to delegitamize the right of return for any of the Arabs. I was simply asking you if when you stated that your support for the right of return was based on this presumed historical connection with their homeland you were aware that a large number of the Arabs who claimed this right had no such historical connection with the land, and if you were not aware of this fact, would you now support their claim to a right to return anyway, and if so, on what basis. I made no argument, but simply asked a lot of questions.

If I understand you correctly, you have now moved from claiming the right of return is based on an historical connection with the land of Israel, to claiming it is based on merely thinking of it as your national homeland even if you and your family never had an historical connection with the land. Even the Arab negotiators have never claimed such a sweeping right of return.

The majority of palestinian refugees have a historical connection with Western Palestine (at least one generation) and this connection is the origin of the Palestinian national identity itself.

But let’s start splitting hairs and address the case of arabs and jews who lived a few years in Western Palestine before the creation of Israel.

I’m gonna create two fictional examples to facilitate understanding:

Ahmed is the son of an Egyptian peasant who arrived in Western Palestine in 1947. During the months that preceded the 1948 war his father fled Jerusalem and took refugee in Jabalya refugee camp where Ahmed was raised and still lives.

Mosche is the son of a Russian jew, who arrived in Tel-Aviv in 1947 too. Mosche still lives in Tel-Aviv today.

Even though their parents arrived in Western Palestine in 1947 both Ahmed and Mosche are Palestinians.

Ahmed is a Palestinian arab, even though his parents left Egypt in 1947, because he spent his entire life in Jabalya refugee camp and there he absorbed the Palestinian national identity that sees Western Palestine as part of their homeland. He simply does not think about himself as an Egyptian and about Egypt as his homeland.

Mosche is a Palestinian jew, even though his parents left Russia in 1947, because he spent his entire life in Tel-Aviv and there he absorbed the jewish/Israeli national identity that sees Western Palestine as part of their homeland. He simply does not think about himself as a Russian jew and about Russia as his homeland.

OK, toomuchtime, enough with hairsplitting cause I’m going bald : )

 

[José]

Originally posted by toomuchtime
Nonetheless, I would argue there is no right of return on an entirely different basis. The important issue to my mind is not how long your family may have lived in the land of Israel, but whether they left on the eve of war as an overt act of support for the invading armies, an act of treason against the newly created sovereign state of Israel. Of course, it would be difficult to determine if leaving had been to support the enemy in time of war, treason, but given the climate of the times, the fact that tiny Israel was surrounded by 100,000,000 Arabs screaming for its destruction, that it was fighting daily skirmishes on all fronts to protect its borders that were killing Israelis every day, it was incumbent upon the Israeli government to be prudent in determining whether or not leaving was for the purpose of supporting the enemy, and prudence would dictate that it should be regarded so unless the individual could document the fact that it was not. If you left and could not prove it wasn't to support the enemy, you had no right to make any claim on the state of Israel and if you stayed, you were a citizen of Israel with full rights regardless of whether your family had been there for centuries or for hours. That was the position the state of Israel took, and I believe it was the right one. All these issues were resolved back then and none are left to be resolved now.

There seems to be a fundamental ideological disagreement between us, toomuchtime.

You seem to believe that the creation of Israel as both legal from an international point of view and morally justified.

I see it as legal but not morally justified.

As someone who believe in the basic principles of the modern democratic state, the so called liberal democracy, I repudiate any attempt to create an ethnic homeland in any part of the world inhabited by more than one ethnicity.

It is an established fact that Palestine was the homeland of more than one ethnicity and it’s totally against the principles of the modern democratic state to create an ethnic homeland in any part of the world inhabited by more than one ethnic group.

These states are based on the supremacist idea that a group of individuals by virtue of their ethnic affiliation have more rights than the other ethnic groups.

Regardless of the circumstances that led to the creation of ethnic homelands in South Africa and Palestine I believe this kind of state must be peacefully dismantled and replaced by democratic states.

In Palestine, in particular, I support the establishment of an international protectorate that would guarantee the safety of both ethnic groups as well as promote national reconciliation and guarantee the right of jews and arabs to settle in the Eastern and Western parts of their shared homeland, respectively.

 

[José]

Originally posted by DiveCon
just as i said
stop lobbing the ******* rockets
you think Israel should even talk to assholes while they are lobbing rockets?
i dont

You and Israel say palestinians must stop lobbing the ******* rockets and then Israel begin to talk about their right to live in Western Palestine.

Palestinians say Israel must start talking about their right to live in Western Palestine and then they stop lobbing rockets.

So the million dollar question comes back with full force:

WHO DOES WHAT FIRST?

 

[DiveCon]

You and Israel say palestinians must stop lobbing the ******* rockets and then Israel begin to talk about their right to live in Western Palestine.

Palestinians say Israel must start talking about their right to live in Western Palestine and then they stop lobbing rockets.

So the million dollar question comes back with full force:

WHO DOES WHAT FIRST?

Israel has stopped, several times, the rockets never do
so, you tell me, how many roickets must Israel endure before its ok from you to respond?

or doesnt Israel get to respond?

 

[toomuchtime_]

You and Israel say palestinians must stop lobbing the ******* rockets and then Israel begin to talk about their right to live in Western Palestine.

Palestinians say Israel must start talking about their right to live in Western Palestine and then they stop lobbing rockets.

So the million dollar question comes back with full force:

WHO DOES WHAT FIRST?

-------------------------------------------

If by Western Palestine, you mean Israel, then there are no conditions under which the Palestinians will ever be allowed to live there, so if that's what Hamas is after then they are putting the Palestinian people through a lot of suffering for nothing.

 

[Modbert]

Israel has stopped, several times, the rockets never do
so, you tell me, how many roickets must Israel endure before its ok from you to respond?

or doesnt Israel get to respond?

Israel has the right to respond. However, I believe that if Israel truly wanted to stop this, they would of gone to the UN long ago and said enough is enough. If one shows justification for invasion, the UN as ******* useless as they are cannot deny the facts.

But no, they rather wait, wait, and wait for the Palis to be done. Then they unleash hell on earth on the opposing land.

Just a couple of quick question Dive and it's a serious one.

Where does Israel stop if they do happen to get the land all to themselves? They could use their religion bullshit justification (just like everyone else does) to say they have a claim on the entire middle east. Do you part ways with agreeing with them there?

If you don't believe that such thing could happen. Exhibit A would be whackos like DavidS on here who would defend Israel (he has given his loyality to Israel first actually) to the death.

 

[DiveCon]

Israel has the right to respond. However, I believe that if Israel truly wanted to stop this, they would of gone to the UN long ago and said enough is enough. If one shows justification for invasion, the UN as ******* useless as they are cannot deny the facts.

But no, they rather wait, wait, and wait for the Palis to be done. Then they unleash hell on earth on the opposing land.

Just a couple of quick question Dive and it's a serious one.

Where does Israel stop if they do happen to get the land all to themselves? They could use their religion bullshit justification (just like everyone else does) to say they have a claim on the entire middle east. Do you part ways with agreeing with them there?

If you don't believe that such thing could happen. Exhibit A would be whackos like DavidS on here who would defend Israel (he has given his loyality to Israel first actually) to the death.

what you are missing, robert, is that Israel has given up land already
and they are willing to give more, for PEACE
but no matter what they do, it wont matter if Hamas still has the mentality of "we'll drive the jews into the sea"
Israel was willing to have the 2 state solution back in 48, they didnt attack the arabs, they were attacked
and it has been the same since

 

[Modbert]

what you are missing, robert, is that Israel has given up land already
and they are willing to give more, for PEACE
but no matter what they do, it wont matter if Hamas still has the mentality of "we'll drive the jews into the sea"
Israel was willing to have the 2 state solution back in 48, they didnt attack the arabs, they were attacked
and it has been the same since

I do realize that Israel was willing to have the 2 state solution back in 48. But you cannot sit there and tell me that Israel has never been the attacker and simply not a victim.

Just like many Jews like David have the mentality "The Palis are animals and we must drive them into the sea". Again, both sides have their whackos.

But my point still stands about Israel and the UN. If they truly wanted to get rid of this problem then they would of took it up with the UN and told them enough is enough. And if you think any action would of been taken against Israel by the UN, then just remember that the U.S. (Israel's #1 ally) is on the security council. Besides, the UN doesn't do shit in the first place to anyone, why would they start now?

Lets face the facts, this will never end until one side is dead. And yes, if Israel and the Palis went to war then countries like Iran will most likely get involved.

But how is that much different then when the U.S. got involved with giving the Afghani Freedom Fighters (including Osama Bin Laden) in the 80's to fight the soviets? Or giving Iraq weapons to go and kill Iran? Or giving Iran weapons to go and secretly kill Iraq? The tanks and weapons that Iraq used to invade Kuwait in the early 90's were the ones we gave them.

America has had a long history of openly or secretly giving weapons, money, or other materials to either other countries or groups to fight other countries/groups. So it will most likely end up being America against Iran really.

Iran and other countries supplying the Palis, and America (and perhaps a few other nations) supplying Israel.

World War III in other words, begins there.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There seems to be a fundamental ideological disagreement between us, toomuchtime.

You seem to believe that the creation of Israel as both legal from an international point of view and morally justified.

I see it as legal but not morally justified.

As someone who believe in the basic principles of the modern democratic state, the so called liberal democracy, I repudiate any attempt to create an ethnic homeland in any part of the world inhabited by more than one ethnicity.

It is an established fact that Palestine was the homeland of more than one ethnicity and it’s totally against the principles of the modern democratic state to create an ethnic homeland in any part of the world inhabited by more than one ethnic group.

These states are based on the supremacist idea that a group of individuals by virtue of their ethnic affiliation have more rights than the other ethnic groups.

Regardless of the circumstances that led to the creation of ethnic homelands in South Africa and Palestine I believe this kind of state must be peacefully dismantled and replaced by democratic states.

In Palestine, in particular, I support the establishment of an international protectorate that would guarantee the safety of both ethnic groups as well as promote national reconciliation and guarantee the right of jews and arabs to settle in the Eastern and Western parts of their shared homeland, respectively.

---------------------------------------------------------------

You seem to be confused about Israel. Israel is multicultural democracy in which non Jewish citizens participate fully and have the same legal rights and protections as Jews do with two exceptions: only Jews enjoy the right to return under Israeli law and only Jews are required by law to serve in the military, although some Arabs also volunteer to serve. The millions of Arabs who are Israeli citizens enjoy more freedoms, more legal rights and more legal protections than any of the Arabs living in any of the other nations in the region and particpate fully in all aspects of Israeli life. The fact is that Israel is the only multi cultural democracy in the region and is likely to remain the only multicultural democracy in the region for generations. You seem to be suggesting that Israel should be dismantled simply because some Arabs who are not Israeli citizens want to live there anyway. How can you possibly justify such a statement?

 

[DiveCon]

I do realize that Israel was willing to have the 2 state solution back in 48. But you cannot sit there and tell me that Israel has never been the attacker and simply not a victim.

Just like many Jews like David have the mentality "The Palis are animals and we must drive them into the sea". Again, both sides have their whackos.

But my point still stands about Israel and the UN. If they truly wanted to get rid of this problem then they would of took it up with the UN and told them enough is enough. And if you think any action would of been taken against Israel by the UN, then just remember that the U.S. (Israel's #1 ally) is on the security council. Besides, the UN doesn't do shit in the first place to anyone, why would they start now?

Lets face the facts, this will never end until one side is dead. And yes, if Israel and the Palis went to war then countries like Iran will most likely get involved.

But how is that much different then when the U.S. got involved with giving the Afghani Freedom Fighters (including Osama Bin Laden) in the 80's to fight the soviets? Or giving Iraq weapons to go and kill Iran? Or giving Iran weapons to go and secretly kill Iraq? The tanks and weapons that Iraq used to invade Kuwait in the early 90's were the ones we gave them.

America has had a long history of openly or secretly giving weapons, money, or other materials to either other countries or groups to fight other countries/groups. So it will most likely end up being America against Iran really.

Iran and other countries supplying the Palis, and America (and perhaps a few other nations) supplying Israel.

World War III in other words, begins there.

oh man, so much wrong(and off topic too)

david is a very SMALL minority, and he ISNT in Israel
and yes, Israel has never attacked unprovoked
you may not agree that the provocation warranted the level of the attack, but that is not the point
it is utter stupidity to think you will go in without a full commitment to finish the job
we did that in Vietnam