Jewish families in Israel

[Roudy]

The fact that a person is Jewish is a state of being, not a designation landlocked by a geographical location.


Looks like this is a thread was created to start an argument or conflict of some type....

Actually, this time I think it's a reasonable question.

To answer with a reasonable one- Do you know Freddi, how many Jews which rooted in Israel pre-1945 brought their relatives over, and they came after 1945?

That should also count.

Me, my family was here since 1883

FTW, assholes!

Indeed, according to international law, the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestine citizenship law, and the PLO charter, you are a native Palestinian.

Yeah right, the same IslamoNazi animals that massacred the Jews of Hebron in 1929, let's let those guys rule Israel. Sure. That will never happen not even in your dreams. LOL

Amin Al Husseini: Nazi Father of Jihad, Al Qaeda, Arafat, Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood - Tell The Children The Truth - Homepage

 

[Roudy]

" Does that mean that all mass immigrations are invasions??"

When they displace the population that is currently living in the area, of course it is an invasion. What else would you call it genius?

So just how did a small population displace the larger population of illegal arab immigrants then. How does that work in reality and on the ground. The arab muslims were armed and outnumbered the Jews 2/3 to 1 so had the upper hand in demographics and fighters and along comes some Jews walking with canes and many close to the end of their life and they "displaced" all these fit heavily armed young men that would kill with their bare hands.

So do explain how old men and women displaced young men and women from their homes. Did the nag them till they left.

You are so easy to show up as a complete moron that it is no fun anymore doing so, it is getting to be an embarrassment of the highest order.

Actually, it was Israel's military that went from neighborhood to town to village driving out an essentially unarmed civilian population. It was a cakewalk. It was no great military feat.

Let's Listen to this old woman, she seems to have a great recollection of how her father and other men slaughtered the Jews and brought back their belongings. Isn't that what Arabs always pride themselves for?

[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=z5CVISBUNUA"]http:/youtube.com/watch?v=z5CVISBUNUA[/ame]

 

[Lipush]

Indeed, according to international law, the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestine citizenship law, and the PLO charter, you are a native Palestinian.

Why thank you. Your approval means alot

Maybe if they approve the right of return you can get your farm back.

My farm is gone.

Why dream of something that can never be?

So goes the same for the 'right of return'.

Dwelling on the past is never good.

Trust me, I know.

 

[Phoenall]

The fact that a person is Jewish is a state of being, not a designation landlocked by a geographical location.


Looks like this is a thread was created to start an argument or conflict of some type....

Actually, this time I think it's a reasonable question.

To answer with a reasonable one- Do you know Freddi, how many Jews which rooted in Israel pre-1945 brought their relatives over, and they came after 1945?

That should also count.

Me, my family was here since 1883

FTW, assholes!

Indeed, according to international law, the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestine citizenship law, and the PLO charter, you are a native Palestinian.

Don't know about the last one as they refuse to recognise Jews as human being. But one thing that cant be disputed is that they are 100% Jewish Israelis under International law, the Treaty of Lausanne and the UN charter

 

[Phoenall]

" Does that mean that all mass immigrations are invasions??"

When they displace the population that is currently living in the area, of course it is an invasion. What else would you call it genius?

So just how did a small population displace the larger population of illegal arab immigrants then. How does that work in reality and on the ground. The arab muslims were armed and outnumbered the Jews 2/3 to 1 so had the upper hand in demographics and fighters and along comes some Jews walking with canes and many close to the end of their life and they "displaced" all these fit heavily armed young men that would kill with their bare hands.

So do explain how old men and women displaced young men and women from their homes. Did the nag them till they left.

You are so easy to show up as a complete moron that it is no fun anymore doing so, it is getting to be an embarrassment of the highest order.

Actually, it was Israel's military that went from neighborhood to town to village driving out an essentially unarmed civilian population. It was a cakewalk. It was no great military feat.

So you can provide the links that show the Jews went from neighbourhood to town to village in 1900 driving out an unarmed population. Because that is when we are talking about, not 1948/1949 when the IDF rooted out all the subversives and terrorists who tried to wipe the Jews out.

 

[Phoenall]

Indeed, according to international law, the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestine citizenship law, and the PLO charter, you are a native Palestinian.

Why thank you. Your approval means alot

Maybe if they approve the right of return you can get your farm back.

The right of return is there, just not for insurgents, terrorists and illegal immigrants. As for the farm it is already back in Jewish hands due to demographics.

 

[Beelzebub]

Its a silly question.

But why its a silly question is more interesting.

 

[Lipush]

?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The fact that a person is Jewish is a state of being, not a designation landlocked by a geographical location.


Looks like this is a thread was created to start an argument or conflict of some type....

Actually, this time I think it's a reasonable question.

To answer with a reasonable one- Do you know Freddi, how many Jews which rooted in Israel pre-1945 brought their relatives over, and they came after 1945?

That should also count.

Me, my family was here since 1883

FTW, assholes!

Indeed, according to international law, the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestine citizenship law, and the PLO charter, you are a native Palestinian.

The Treaty of Lausanne doesn't even mention "Palestine."

 

[Statistikhengst]

Its a silly question.

But why its a silly question is more interesting.

 

[toastman]

Actually, this time I think it's a reasonable question.

To answer with a reasonable one- Do you know Freddi, how many Jews which rooted in Israel pre-1945 brought their relatives over, and they came after 1945?

That should also count.

Me, my family was here since 1883

FTW, assholes!

Indeed, according to international law, the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestine citizenship law, and the PLO charter, you are a native Palestinian.

The Treaty of Lausanne doesn't even mention "Palestine."

Exactly. It has NOTHING TO DO with Palestine or Palestinians.

Tinmore used that treaty like a whore to parade his bullshit.

 

[montelatici]

So just how did a small population displace the larger population of illegal arab immigrants then. How does that work in reality and on the ground. The arab muslims were armed and outnumbered the Jews 2/3 to 1 so had the upper hand in demographics and fighters and along comes some Jews walking with canes and many close to the end of their life and they "displaced" all these fit heavily armed young men that would kill with their bare hands.

So do explain how old men and women displaced young men and women from their homes. Did the nag them till they left.

You are so easy to show up as a complete moron that it is no fun anymore doing so, it is getting to be an embarrassment of the highest order.

Actually, it was Israel's military that went from neighborhood to town to village driving out an essentially unarmed civilian population. It was a cakewalk. It was no great military feat.

So you can provide the links that show the Jews went from neighbourhood to town to village in 1900 driving out an unarmed population. Because that is when we are talking about, not 1948/1949 when the IDF rooted out all the subversives and terrorists who tried to wipe the Jews out.

"So you can provide the links that show the Jews went from neighbourhood to town to village in 1900 driving out an unarmed population. "

"claims had been occupied and cultivated by Arabs for very many years. Not
only were areas available for Jewish settlement "negligible," but already
Jewish settlements were interfering with the rights of grazing and culti-
vation of bedouin, the majority of whom wandered in Beersheba as in
ancient times. Fellaheen who were evicted from their lands in the country-
side, on emigrating to the cities, found that the Histadrut (Jewish Labor
Federation) excluded them from employment in Jewish industry and com-
merce, resulting in serious ~nemployment.~'
Zionist policies faced Arabs with discrimination based on race, religion,
or national origin at every turn: Kibush Hakarka (Conquest of the Land)
took the Arab tenant's land, Kibush Ha'avoda (Conquest of Labor)
prevented the hiring of Arabs as employees, and T'ozteret Ha'aretz
(Produce of the Land) imposed a boycott of Arab produced commoditie~.'~
The Constitution of the Jewish Agency (1929), Art. 111, declared: "Land is
to be acquired as Jewish property. . .[and] held as the inalienable property
of the Jewish people. The Agency shall promote agricultural colonisation
based on Jewish labour, and in all works or undertakings carried out or
furthered by the Agency, it shall be deemed to be a matter of principle that
Jewish labour shall be employed.. .."The Keren Kayemeth lease contained
the restrictive covenant based on race that the holding shall never be held by
any but a Jew and that only Jewish labor could be employed in connection
with cultivation of the holding. Jewish lessees who hired or attempted to sell
rights to Arabs were to have their own leases terminated."

http://mises.org/journals/jls/5_4/5_4_2.pdf

 

[Roudy]

So to conclude the Jews were the majority population in Jerusalem in the 1800's to early 1900's until the Arab invaders arrived.

And the Arabs were the ones that started the ethnic cleansing of Jews by committing genocide on the ancient Jews of Hebron in 1929.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So to conclude the Jews were the majority population in Jerusalem in the 1800's to early 1900's until the Arab invaders arrived.

And the Arabs were the ones that started the ethnic cleansing of Jews by committing genocide on the ancient Jews of Hebron in 1929.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Actually, this time I think it's a reasonable question.

To answer with a reasonable one- Do you know Freddi, how many Jews which rooted in Israel pre-1945 brought their relatives over, and they came after 1945?

That should also count.

Me, my family was here since 1883

FTW, assholes!

Indeed, according to international law, the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestine citizenship law, and the PLO charter, you are a native Palestinian.

The Treaty of Lausanne doesn't even mention "Palestine."

Nor does it mention Israel.

Do you have a point?

 

[Beelzebub]

?

Well, as you are all just dying to know.

People who can 'trace their family history back to Israel, pre 1945' is not very relevant, as it could easily be overstated, if people make a point of marrying into at least one person which such heritage.

For example, one chap born in 1944 could have 3 offspring, all marrying into the invading Europeans of the later 1940's or 1970's. They might have three offspring each. who have 3 offspring each, each 20 years or so. Therefore one person from 1944 could be the basis for the claim for heritage for 74 direct descendants, with families, so maybe hundreds or thousands of people who claim the family connection. Even if it is through marriage, not direct bloodline.

And the original chap might have just arrived from Europe for the first time in December 1944.

However the injustice of the invasion, the ethnic cleansing by invading Zionist forces, land and resource theft, etc, would not be excused if everyone in question had been born in 1700 and had miraculously lived there continuously.

Similarly injustice from the other side would not be excused.
Self defence against invaders has a legal defence. I think no one would suggest the French did not have a right to violently resist German occupation - Same goes for Palestine, though, violence should always be avoided where legal redress is available, and in the case of Palestine is largely counter-productive.

Sadly Israel has largely makes legal redress inoperative and ineffective for Palestinians.
Though recently, there is a growing consensus that Israel can be brought to book by civil and legal action. Which can only be good for all involved, apart from the war profiteers.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why thank you. Your approval means alot

Maybe if they approve the right of return you can get your farm back.

My farm is gone.

Why dream of something that can never be?

So goes the same for the 'right of return'.

Dwelling on the past is never good.

Trust me, I know.

I don't know where your farm was.

 

[Roudy]

Well, as you are all just dying to know.

People who can 'trace their family history back to Israel, pre 1945' is not very relevant, as it could easily be overstated, if people make a point of marrying into at least one person which such heritage.

For example, one chap born in 1944 could have 3 offspring, who marrying from the invading Europeans of the later 1940's or 1970's. They might have three offspring each. who have 3 offspring each, each 20 years or so. Therefore one person from 1944 could be the basis for the claim for heritage for 74 direct descendants, with families, so maybe hundreds or thousands of people who claim the family connection. Even if it is through marriage, not direct bloodline.

And the original chap might have just arrived from Europe for the first time in December 1944.

However the injustice of the invasion, the ethnic cleansing by invading Zionist forces, land and resource theft, etc, would not be excused if everyone in question had been born in 1700 and had miraculously lived there continuously.

Similarly injustice from the other side would not be excused.
Self defence against invaders has a legal defence. I think no one would suggest the French did not have a right to violently resist German occupation - Same goes for Palestine, though, violence should always be avoided where legal redress is available, and in the case of Palestine is largely counter-productive.

Sadly Israel has largely makes legal redress inoperative and ineffective for Palestinians.
Though recently, there is a growing consensus that Israel can be brought to book by civil and legal action. Which can only be good for all involved, apart from the war profiteers.

The Arab chaps are recent 20 century invaders from neighboring Arab countries.

 

[Beelzebub]

The Arab chaps are recent 20 century invaders from neighboring Arab countries.

There is good evidence that they are substantially the descendants of the inhabitants of 1,934 years ago, and the surviving Jewish inhabitants who converted, due to the Roman decree that Jews could no longer reside there.

After the destruction of The Temple, you will recall, there were few survivors of the Roman purge of Jewish resistors, and the Zealot murders of non-resistors. But some remained, and were permitted, as long as they stopped being Jewish.

However, your point on the origin if the Palestinians is also a red herring.
The families who were there in the early 20th Century had right to the land, the fields and the natural resources. The invading Europeans did not. Nor did the League of Nations, nor UN, nor did Britain have any moral right to give away such rights. They claim legal right, but that 'legal right' was magic'd out of thin air and the point of a gun. No other.

And it is a well worn, if oft betrayed principle of international law since the 1800's that military force cannot be a method of annexing territory.

 

[montelatici]

Well, as you are all just dying to know.

People who can 'trace their family history back to Israel, pre 1945' is not very relevant, as it could easily be overstated, if people make a point of marrying into at least one person which such heritage.

For example, one chap born in 1944 could have 3 offspring, who marrying from the invading Europeans of the later 1940's or 1970's. They might have three offspring each. who have 3 offspring each, each 20 years or so. Therefore one person from 1944 could be the basis for the claim for heritage for 74 direct descendants, with families, so maybe hundreds or thousands of people who claim the family connection. Even if it is through marriage, not direct bloodline.

And the original chap might have just arrived from Europe for the first time in December 1944.

However the injustice of the invasion, the ethnic cleansing by invading Zionist forces, land and resource theft, etc, would not be excused if everyone in question had been born in 1700 and had miraculously lived there continuously.

Similarly injustice from the other side would not be excused.
Self defence against invaders has a legal defence. I think no one would suggest the French did not have a right to violently resist German occupation - Same goes for Palestine, though, violence should always be avoided where legal redress is available, and in the case of Palestine is largely counter-productive.

Sadly Israel has largely makes legal redress inoperative and ineffective for Palestinians.
Though recently, there is a growing consensus that Israel can be brought to book by civil and legal action. Which can only be good for all involved, apart from the war profiteers.

The Arab chaps are recent 20 century invaders from neighboring Arab countries.

No, as official records demonstrate, the Jews were the 20th century invaders.

Let's separate the propaganda from fact:

From the 1930, a typical year, Interim Report by the Mandatory:

Of 6,433 immigrants (legal and illegal allowed to remain) only 1,409 were non-Jewish. So please stop the propaganda.


"6. 6,433 immigrants were admitted to Palestine, that is 3,386 men, 2,116 women, and 931 children, of whom 2,550 men, 1,700 women, and 694 children were Jewish. Included are 695 Jews, 493 Christians, 112 Moslems, and 6 Druze who had entered without permission but were allowed to remain. Of the 6,433 immigrants, 3,563 came from Europe east of a line drawn from Danzig to Trieste, 1,187 from North Africa and Western Asia including `Iraq, Persia, and Afghanistan, 411 from Central Europe, 286 from the United States of America, and 695 from the British Empire. The last figure includes 404 British Constables." -

See more at: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C2FEFF7B90A248
15052565E6004E5630#sthash.N1WaEwKe.dpuf