Jewish families in Israel

[Lipush]

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.

Near what is now Mazkeret Batya. The farm is gone, but the town my great-great grandfather helped building is still intact.

We want the lands we've lost, of course, but to know that the poject my righteous grandfathbuilt still exist, sweeten the bad pill a bit.

Google 'Mazkeret Batya'. It was built under the Baron's will, by 11 Rabbies from Russia in 1883. one of those Rabbis was Dov Rodvsky, he was my Savta's grandfather. After they lost the ranch, they stayed in their other house, the one my grandfather built in the town he helped building. There my grandmother was born. She dreamed her father's dream to retrieve the ranch, but she knew to recognize a lost caust when it's there.

So her life she dedicated to Mazkeret Betya, which was where she grew up in.

That, Mr Tinmore, is the true meaning of Zionism. We lost, but we still exist in the little we have. Build build build, and live.

 

[Roudy]

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.

No there is absolutely no evidence other than they are invading Arabs from neighboring Arab lands that are identical in language, culture, and genes to their Arab neighbors, in fact, THEY ARE THEM.

 

[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.

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

Now now, I clearly showed you that in Jerusalem in 1905 there were 32,000 Arabs and by 1944 they had jumped to 157,000. All the while, the Jews were the majority prior to the Arab invasion. So, where did these Arabs come from? Uranus or your MOHOMOD?

 

[montelatici]

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

Now now, I clearly showed you that in Jerusalem in 1905 there were 32,000 Arabs and by 1944 they had jumped to 157,000. All the while, the Jews were the majority prior to the Arab invasion. So, where did these Arabs come from? Uranus or your MOHOMOD?

No, Jews were a small minority before the Zionist invasion, the Palestinians were the absolute majority. You did not read the Jewish Virtual Library data.

 

[Roudy]

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

Now now, I clearly showed you that in Jerusalem in 1905 there were 32,000 Arabs and by 1944 they had jumped to 157,000. All the while, the Jews were the majority prior to the Arab invasion. So, where did these Arabs come from? Uranus or your MOHOMOD?

No, Jews were a small minority before the Zionist invasion, the Palestinians were the absolute majority. You did not read the Jewish Virtual Library data.

Nope. Jews were majority in Jerusalem from the mid 1800's to the early 1900's, MOHOMOD. The numbers do not support your bullshit. I already presented them to you and you confirmed them. But if you wish to shove your foot in your mouth again I will oblige and recall the numbers for the tenth time.

 

[montelatici]

Nope. Jews were majority in Jerusalem from the mid 1800's to the early 1900's,

No, Jews were a minority until the Zionist invasion, Palestinians were the majority. In fact, this is confirmed by even the Jewish Virtual Library which fudges its numbers anyway. But, it was the Muslims that brought the Jews back to Jerusalem. Both the Roman Byzantines and the Crusaders forbid Jews from living in Jerusalem.

 

[Roudy]

Nope. Jews were majority in Jerusalem from the mid 1800's to the early 1900's,

No, Jews were a minority until the Zionist invasion, Palestinians were the majority. In fact, this is confirmed by even the Jewish Virtual Library which fudges its numbers anyway. But, it was the Muslims that brought the Jews back to Jerusalem. Both the Roman Byzantines and the Crusaders forbid Jews from living in Jerusalem.

Hah? How do you explain that in 1905 there were only 32.000 Arabs in Jerusalem and by 1944 it had mushroomed to a total of 157,000. You are fulla Islamic Shiite.

 

[toastman]

?

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.

'Zionist Invaders'

Spoken like a true Palestinian propagandist..

The European Jews didn't invade Pali Nazi, they were invited by the British who also facilitated their immigration.
Maybe you should reading electronicintifada and mondoweiss

Israel exists, stop whining about it. Or don't, who cares...

 

[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, 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.

'Zionist Invaders'

Spoken like a true Palestinian propagandist..

The European Jews didn't invade Pali Nazi, they were invited by the British who also facilitated their immigration.
Maybe you should reading electronicintifada and mondoweiss

Israel exists, stop whining about it. Or don't, who cares...

"The European Jews didn't invade Pali Nazi, they were invited by the British who also facilitated their immigration.'

What right did the British have to "invite" Europeans to settle and displace the indigenous people of Palestine? Are you nuts, do you actually understand what you are saying?

 

[Sally]

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.

'Zionist Invaders'

Spoken like a true Palestinian propagandist..

The European Jews didn't invade Pali Nazi, they were invited by the British who also facilitated their immigration.
Maybe you should reading electronicintifada and mondoweiss

Israel exists, stop whining about it. Or don't, who cares...

"The European Jews didn't invade Pali Nazi, they were invited by the British who also facilitated their immigration.'

What right did the British have to "invite" Europeans to settle and displace the indigenous people of Palestine? Are you nuts, do you actually understand what you are saying?

What indigenous people??? .I would say that the British officials in the area were not asleep at the switch when they saw all the Arabs cpme from their poor surrounding countries for the jobs the Jews had for them, much like we see happening around the world -- where poor people are coming for jobs that their own countries can't supply them with. Why not tell us why your fellow Muslims are leaving their beloved Muslim countries to live in the same proximity of the Infidels? I wonder how long it will take the Muslims who came to Europe for jobs to say that they are the indigenous people. Gee, I wonder if they will have their own Boiler Room group going strong night and day trying to get it to stick in the minds of others that they are the indigenous people of whatever country they settled in for employment.

A Tour and Census of Palestine Year 1695: No sign of Arabian names or Palestinians | Palestine-Israel Conflict

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

'Zionist Invaders'

Spoken like a true Palestinian propagandist..

The European Jews didn't invade Pali Nazi, they were invited by the British who also facilitated their immigration.
Maybe you should reading electronicintifada and mondoweiss

Israel exists, stop whining about it. Or don't, who cares...

"The European Jews didn't invade Pali Nazi, they were invited by the British who also facilitated their immigration.'

What right did the British have to "invite" Europeans to settle and displace the indigenous people of Palestine? Are you nuts, do you actually understand what you are saying?

A world wide colonial power assists the Zionists in taking over and colonizing Palestine.

And that makes it OK?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Near what is now Mazkeret Batya. The farm is gone, but the town my great-great grandfather helped building is still intact.

We want the lands we've lost, of course, but to know that the poject my righteous grandfathbuilt still exist, sweeten the bad pill a bit.

Google 'Mazkeret Batya'. It was built under the Baron's will, by 11 Rabbies from Russia in 1883. one of those Rabbis was Dov Rodvsky, he was my Savta's grandfather. After they lost the ranch, they stayed in their other house, the one my grandfather built in the town he helped building. There my grandmother was born. She dreamed her father's dream to retrieve the ranch, but she knew to recognize a lost caust when it's there.

So her life she dedicated to Mazkeret Betya, which was where she grew up in.

That, Mr Tinmore, is the true meaning of Zionism. We lost, but we still exist in the little we have. Build build build, and live.

Just curious. Mazkeret Betya has been in Israeli controlled territory since 1948. It is Israel that is denying the return to your land.

 

[Lipush]

I don't know where your farm was.

Near what is now Mazkeret Batya. The farm is gone, but the town my great-great grandfather helped building is still intact.

We want the lands we've lost, of course, but to know that the poject my righteous grandfathbuilt still exist, sweeten the bad pill a bit.

Google 'Mazkeret Batya'. It was built under the Baron's will, by 11 Rabbies from Russia in 1883. one of those Rabbis was Dov Rodvsky, he was my Savta's grandfather. After they lost the ranch, they stayed in their other house, the one my grandfather built in the town he helped building. There my grandmother was born. She dreamed her father's dream to retrieve the ranch, but she knew to recognize a lost caust when it's there.

So her life she dedicated to Mazkeret Betya, which was where she grew up in.

That, Mr Tinmore, is the true meaning of Zionism. We lost, but we still exist in the little we have. Build build build, and live.

Just curious. Mazkeret Betya has been in Israeli controlled territory since 1948. It is Israel that is denying the return to your land.

The ranch wasn't inside Mazkeret Batya, I made that clear.

And deny my rights to go WHERE? the ranch was set on fire by ARABS. THEY are the ones that denied us our home.

 

[Roudy]

'Zionist Invaders'

Spoken like a true Palestinian propagandist..

The European Jews didn't invade Pali Nazi, they were invited by the British who also facilitated their immigration.
Maybe you should reading electronicintifada and mondoweiss

Israel exists, stop whining about it. Or don't, who cares...

"The European Jews didn't invade Pali Nazi, they were invited by the British who also facilitated their immigration.'

What right did the British have to "invite" Europeans to settle and displace the indigenous people of Palestine? Are you nuts, do you actually understand what you are saying?

A world wide colonial power assists the Zionists in taking over and colonizing Palestine.

And that makes it OK?

Hah? The colonial power was the Ottoman Turks who occupied the entire region for 700 years. They sided with Germany in WWI and were defeated BY the Americans and the Europeans, who then divided the entire region into all the Arab Muslim shitholes we see today, except for one. So this "colonial" crap just doesn't apply here.

 

[montelatici]

"The European Jews didn't invade Pali Nazi, they were invited by the British who also facilitated their immigration.'

What right did the British have to "invite" Europeans to settle and displace the indigenous people of Palestine? Are you nuts, do you actually understand what you are saying?

A world wide colonial power assists the Zionists in taking over and colonizing Palestine.

And that makes it OK?

Hah? The colonial power was the Ottoman Turks who occupied the entire region for 700 years. They sided with Germany in WWI and were defeated BY the Americans and the Europeans, who then divided the entire region into all the Arab Muslim shitholes we see today, except for one. So this "colonial" crap just doesn't apply here.

Let's see, people from Europe go to another continent, they settle on land, they throw out the local inhabitants and they declare it their country. Seems like that's what colonists do. If walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

 

[Roudy]

A world wide colonial power assists the Zionists in taking over and colonizing Palestine.

And that makes it OK?

Hah? The colonial power was the Ottoman Turks who occupied the entire region for 700 years. They sided with Germany in WWI and were defeated BY the Americans and the Europeans, who then divided the entire region into all the Arab Muslim shitholes we see today, except for one. So this "colonial" crap just doesn't apply here.

Let's see, people from Europe go to another continent, they settle on land, they throw out the local inhabitants and they declare it their country. Seems like that's what colonists do. If walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

I guess you didn't bother reading what I just posted. I just told you that the land was occupied by the Ottomans for 700 years and Europeans had nothing to do with it during that time.

If it walks like a dumbass convert, quacks Islamic lies and false propaganda like a dumbass convert then it must be a dumbass convert!

 

[ForeverYoung436]

A world wide colonial power assists the Zionists in taking over and colonizing Palestine.

And that makes it OK?

Hah? The colonial power was the Ottoman Turks who occupied the entire region for 700 years. They sided with Germany in WWI and were defeated BY the Americans and the Europeans, who then divided the entire region into all the Arab Muslim shitholes we see today, except for one. So this "colonial" crap just doesn't apply here.

Let's see, people from Europe go to another continent, they settle on land, they throw out the local inhabitants and they declare it their country. Seems like that's what colonists do. If walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Get over it. Jews were persecuted for 2,000 years, not just in the Holocaust, but that was the culmination. Like my dad used to say, "When you don't have your own country, anybody can walk over to you and spit in your face." But there's an additional reason. When Obama said that the Jews got their own country because of the Holocaust, he was reminded that Israel was the ancestral home of the Jews. You probably have never been to Israel, monte, but every single place there has historical and/or Biblical Jewish significance.

 

[montelatici]

Hah? The colonial power was the Ottoman Turks who occupied the entire region for 700 years. They sided with Germany in WWI and were defeated BY the Americans and the Europeans, who then divided the entire region into all the Arab Muslim shitholes we see today, except for one. So this "colonial" crap just doesn't apply here.

Let's see, people from Europe go to another continent, they settle on land, they throw out the local inhabitants and they declare it their country. Seems like that's what colonists do. If walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Get over it. Jews were persecuted for 2,000 years, not just in the Holocaust, but that was the culmination. Like my dad used to say, "When you don't have your own country, anybody can walk over to you and spit in your face." But there's an additional reason. When Obama said that the Jews got their own country because of the Holocaust, he was reminded that Israel was the ancestral home of the Jews. You probably have never been to Israel, monte, but every single place there has historical and/or Biblical Jewish significance.

Non Sequitur. Palestinian Christians and Muslims had nothing to do with Jewish persecution in Europe.

It doesn't change the fact that Europeans colonized Palestine.

And, I have been to Israel.

 

[Sally]

Let's see, people from Europe go to another continent, they settle on land, they throw out the local inhabitants and they declare it their country. Seems like that's what colonists do. If walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Get over it. Jews were persecuted for 2,000 years, not just in the Holocaust, but that was the culmination. Like my dad used to say, "When you don't have your own country, anybody can walk over to you and spit in your face." But there's an additional reason. When Obama said that the Jews got their own country because of the Holocaust, he was reminded that Israel was the ancestral home of the Jews. You probably have never been to Israel, monte, but every single place there has historical and/or Biblical Jewish significance.

Non Sequitur. Palestinian Christians and Muslims had nothing to do with Jewish persecution in Europe.

It doesn't change the fact that Europeans colonized Palestine.

And, I have been to Israel.

What Haniya consistently leaves out (because naturally even converts to Islam can't bear to see a tiny area of the Middle East governed by Jews) is that the Arabs came from their poor surrounding areas for the jobs that the Jews had for them. the same way the Muslims are now pouring into Europe because their poor countries can't supply them with a living. It looks like it was the Arabs who were busy colonizing Israel. Regardless of Haniya going on and on about this, I prefer to believe what someone actually saw hundreds of years ago. Plus I also prefer to believe the British officials who were stationed in the area and saw the Arabs arriving in droves from their poor countries.

A Tour and Census of Palestine Year 1695: No sign of Arabian names or Palestinians

A Tour and Census of Palestine Year 1695: No sign of Arabian names or Palestinians | Palestine-Israel Conflict

 

[montelatici]

that the Arabs came from their poor surrounding areas for the jobs that the Jews had for them.

Again, you post Zionist propaganda. The record shows that the vast majority of immigrants to Israel were Jews. Let's get source documents from a typical year like 1932 and read them Sally and you will see that of the 6,730 people admitted to Palestine in 1932 5,823 were Jews and only 101 were Muslims. This is from source documents not bullshit that you just post with no credible back up.

Report by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the Administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1932

"4. Of the 6,730 persons who were admitted to Palestine as immigrants during the year, 5,823 were Jews, 805 were Christians and 101 were Moslems. Of the Jews, 2,349 were men, 2,435 women, 539 boys and 500 girls. Among the Christians there were 282 men, 272 women, 135 boys and 116 girls, and among the Moslems 35 men, 24 women, 18 boys and 24 girls.

- See more at: Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations (31 December 1932)