Pawns of the Powers that Be

Rosie:

Are you trying to apologize for ethnic cleansing when its committed by the "chosen people?"

In 1948 over 700,000 Arabs and others were uprooted from their homes, businesses and bank accounts when one third of the population of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish State by force of arms.

If 700,000 Jews had been displaced, you would have no problem blaming their tormentors, would you?

Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What part did the Palestinians play in that exodus?

That's obvious to all but the most dense Arab apologists and propagandists.
In VIOLENTLY rejecting partition, the Arabs (they did not become known as "Palestinians" until 1964) played on the anti-Jewish sentiment amongst their Muslim brethren who quickly displaced the centuries old Jewish communities in the Arab/Muslim World.
 
The naqba was self-inflicted.

The simple fact is that the would-have-been “Palestinians” could have had a state in peace, but chose war on MANY occasions- INSTEAD:

The would-have-been “Palestinians” would have had a state IN PEACE in 1937 with the Peel Plan, but they violently rejected it.

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1939 with the MacDonald White Paper, but they violently rejected it (and Jews would have even been restricted from BUYING land from Arabs).

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1948 with UN 181, but they violently rejected it (and actually claimed that the UN had no such mandate!).

They could have had a state IN PEACE in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza from 1948-1967 without any Jews- because the Arabs had ethnically cleansed every last one; but they violently rejected it. In fact, that's exactly when they established Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964).

They could have had a state IN PEACE after 1967, but instead, the entire Arab world issued the Khartoum Resolutions:

A. No peace with Israel
B. No recognition of Israel
C. No negotiations with Israel

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 2000 with the Oslo Accords, but they violently rejected it- as always.

And as soon as Israel pulled every single Israeli out of Gaza, what did the would-have-been “Palestinians” do? They immediately started shooting thousands of missiles into Israeli population centers, they elected Hamas (whose official platform calls for jihad with no negotiations until Israel is destroyed) to rule them, and they have dug tunnels crossing into the Negev to kill and kidnap Israelis.

And even afterwards, Ehud Olmert made his subsequent generous offer that went far beyond even that of Barak. The would-have-been "Palestinians" rejected it.

They had many chances.

They threw them all away because destroying Israel was higher on their priority list. It still is.

Oh well. That’s their choice.
 

That's obvious to all but the most dense Arab apologists and propagandists.
In VIOLENTLY rejecting partition, the Arabs (they did not become known as "Palestinians" until 1964) played on the anti-Jewish sentiment amongst their Muslim brethren who quickly displaced the centuries old Jewish communities in the Arab/Muslim World.

The plan had to be approved by both sides to be valid. The Palestinians rejected the plan which they had every right to do.

The Zionists went ahead to create their state anyway even though they had no legal right to do so.
 
on the one hand

the nakba is a true description of what happened to the pals in 1948

all klepto-zionist attempts to deflect and disguise that fact are truly sick making

as usual the best true historical accounts are by honest "new" israeli historians Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe

The right wing Israeli politicians wanted to make it a crime for arab israelis to hold any public commemorations of the nakba and subject them to "loyalty tests" or face deportation to the west bank....Liebermann especially, but Neten Yahoo blocked this....for now

on the other hand

it is true that the pal refugees have been dreadfully abused by Arab governments in their host countries, unlike the jewish refugees who found homes in Israel and the west.

i have personally seen pal refugee camps in jordan. a breeding ground for terrorists and having huge families

Rosie is right there were tens of millions of displaced people after ww2...10 million germans of whom over a million died in the process...is just one example

Morris and Pappe are only "best" because you subscribe to their POV. Pappe remains vigilant but Morris has had second thoughts on his post-Oslo "over-exuberance." :D
 
The naqba was self-inflicted.

The simple fact is that the would-have-been “Palestinians” could have had a state in peace, but chose war on MANY occasions- INSTEAD:

The would-have-been “Palestinians” would have had a state IN PEACE in 1937 with the Peel Plan, but they violently rejected it.

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1939 with the MacDonald White Paper, but they violently rejected it (and Jews would have even been restricted from BUYING land from Arabs).

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1948 with UN 181, but they violently rejected it (and actually claimed that the UN had no such mandate!).

They could have had a state IN PEACE in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza from 1948-1967 without any Jews- because the Arabs had ethnically cleansed every last one; but they violently rejected it. In fact, that's exactly when they established Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964).

They could have had a state IN PEACE after 1967, but instead, the entire Arab world issued the Khartoum Resolutions:

A. No peace with Israel
B. No recognition of Israel
C. No negotiations with Israel

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 2000 with the Oslo Accords, but they violently rejected it- as always.

And as soon as Israel pulled every single Israeli out of Gaza, what did the would-have-been “Palestinians” do? They immediately started shooting thousands of missiles into Israeli population centers, they elected Hamas (whose official platform calls for jihad with no negotiations until Israel is destroyed) to rule them, and they have dug tunnels crossing into the Negev to kill and kidnap Israelis.

And even afterwards, Ehud Olmert made his subsequent generous offer that went far beyond even that of Barak. The would-have-been "Palestinians" rejected it.

They had many chances.

They threw them all away because destroying Israel was higher on their priority list. It still is.

Oh well. That’s their choice.

What kind of "a state" are you talking about?
 
on the one hand

the nakba is a true description of what happened to the pals in 1948

all klepto-zionist attempts to deflect and disguise that fact are truly sick making

as usual the best true historical accounts are by honest "new" israeli historians Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe

The right wing Israeli politicians wanted to make it a crime for arab israelis to hold any public commemorations of the nakba

and subject them to "loyalty tests" to jewish israel

or face deportation to the west bank....Liebermann especially, but Neten Yahoo blocked this....for now

on the other hand

it is true that the pal refugees have been dreadfully abused by Arab governments in their host countries, unlike the jewish refugees who found homes in Israel and the west.

i have personally seen pal refugee camps in jordan. a breeding ground for terrorists and having huge families all welfare dependent

Rosie is right there were tens of millions of displaced people after ww2...

many million germans all over eastern europe, of whom over a million died in the process...is just one example

I want to make it a capital crime to block my garage door (no luck so far).
So tell me, Kvetcher, is it a crime for those traitors to celebrate their Nakba? :D
 
The plan had to be approved by both sides to be valid. The Palestinians rejected the plan which they had every right to do.

The Zionists went ahead to create their state anyway even though they had no legal right to do so.
Incorrect. The plan only had to be approved by a majority of UN members- and it was.

We followed UN 181 and established our state.

The Arabs violently rejected UN 181 and chose war INSTEAD OF a state.

The end.
 
There were Jews living in all three of those places but were displaced during Israel's war. Otherwise they would probably still be living there.

By "Israel's war" do you by chance refer to the civil war (Nov 1947-May 1948) between the Mandate's Arabs and Jews or the regional war (May 1947-July 1949) which included the militaries of multiple Arab countries? :D

First explain your civil war theory.

1948 Arab
 
The naqba was self-inflicted.

The simple fact is that the would-have-been “Palestinians” could have had a state in peace, but chose war on MANY occasions- INSTEAD:

The would-have-been “Palestinians” would have had a state IN PEACE in 1937 with the Peel Plan, but they violently rejected it.

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1939 with the MacDonald White Paper, but they violently rejected it (and Jews would have even been restricted from BUYING land from Arabs).

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1948 with UN 181, but they violently rejected it (and actually claimed that the UN had no such mandate!).

They could have had a state IN PEACE in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza from 1948-1967 without any Jews- because the Arabs had ethnically cleansed every last one; but they violently rejected it. In fact, that's exactly when they established Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964).

They could have had a state IN PEACE after 1967, but instead, the entire Arab world issued the Khartoum Resolutions:

A. No peace with Israel
B. No recognition of Israel
C. No negotiations with Israel

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 2000 with the Oslo Accords, but they violently rejected it- as always.

And as soon as Israel pulled every single Israeli out of Gaza, what did the would-have-been “Palestinians” do? They immediately started shooting thousands of missiles into Israeli population centers, they elected Hamas (whose official platform calls for jihad with no negotiations until Israel is destroyed) to rule them, and they have dug tunnels crossing into the Negev to kill and kidnap Israelis.

And even afterwards, Ehud Olmert made his subsequent generous offer that went far beyond even that of Barak. The would-have-been "Palestinians" rejected it.

They had many chances.

They threw them all away because destroying Israel was higher on their priority list. It still is.

Oh well. That’s their choice.

What kind of "a state" are you talking about?

Different types of states at different stages. Note that they rejected them all.

So they won't have a state; not here.

That's their choice.
 
The plan had to be approved by both sides to be valid. The Palestinians rejected the plan which they had every right to do.

The Zionists went ahead to create their state anyway even though they had no legal right to do so.
Incorrect. The plan only had to be approved by a majority of UN members- and it was.

We followed UN 181 and established our state.

The Arabs violently rejected UN 181 and chose war INSTEAD OF a state.

The end.

Not true. The UN Security Council did not implement the plan because to do so without the approval of the Palestinians, would have violated international law and the UN Charter.
 
The naqba was self-inflicted.

The simple fact is that the would-have-been “Palestinians” could have had a state in peace, but chose war on MANY occasions- INSTEAD:

The would-have-been “Palestinians” would have had a state IN PEACE in 1937 with the Peel Plan, but they violently rejected it.

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1939 with the MacDonald White Paper, but they violently rejected it (and Jews would have even been restricted from BUYING land from Arabs).

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1948 with UN 181, but they violently rejected it (and actually claimed that the UN had no such mandate!).

They could have had a state IN PEACE in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza from 1948-1967 without any Jews- because the Arabs had ethnically cleansed every last one; but they violently rejected it. In fact, that's exactly when they established Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964).

They could have had a state IN PEACE after 1967, but instead, the entire Arab world issued the Khartoum Resolutions:

A. No peace with Israel
B. No recognition of Israel
C. No negotiations with Israel

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 2000 with the Oslo Accords, but they violently rejected it- as always.

And as soon as Israel pulled every single Israeli out of Gaza, what did the would-have-been “Palestinians” do? They immediately started shooting thousands of missiles into Israeli population centers, they elected Hamas (whose official platform calls for jihad with no negotiations until Israel is destroyed) to rule them, and they have dug tunnels crossing into the Negev to kill and kidnap Israelis.

And even afterwards, Ehud Olmert made his subsequent generous offer that went far beyond even that of Barak. The would-have-been "Palestinians" rejected it.

They had many chances.

They threw them all away because destroying Israel was higher on their priority list. It still is.

Oh well. That’s their choice.

What kind of "a state" are you talking about?

Different types of states at different stages. Note that they rejected them all.

So they won't have a state; not here.

That's their choice.

Nice dodge.
 
The plan had to be approved by both sides to be valid. The Palestinians rejected the plan which they had every right to do.

The Zionists went ahead to create their state anyway even though they had no legal right to do so.
Incorrect. The plan only had to be approved by a majority of UN members- and it was.

We followed UN 181 and established our state.

The Arabs violently rejected UN 181 and chose war INSTEAD OF a state.

The end.

Not true. The UN Security Council did not implement the plan because to do so without the approval of the Palestinians, would have violated international law and the UN Charter.

It was the UN General Assembly.

And you say that I need to read up on things?
 
The plan had to be approved by both sides to be valid. The Palestinians rejected the plan which they had every right to do.

The Zionists went ahead to create their state anyway even though they had no legal right to do so.
Incorrect. The plan only had to be approved by a majority of UN members- and it was.

We followed UN 181 and established our state.

The Arabs violently rejected UN 181 and chose war INSTEAD OF a state.

The end.

In fact, UN 181 did not establish any new states (UN is not in the nation building biz) but rather offered both of the conflicted parties a peaceful way to settle their differences.
Soon-to-be Israelis were within their rights to declare their independence and the Arabs were stupid to reject peaceful coexistence (see link below).
Ironically (and IMHO), had the Arabs also accepted partition, Israel probably would not have survived as an independent state and would most likely have been forced to seek confederation with their neighbors, becoming an autonomous region of a larger, Arab majority country.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...7YHABg&usg=AFQjCNHOvyD8LHKwQ05lBMgTjLtbNpAAmQ
 
The plan had to be approved by both sides to be valid. The Palestinians rejected the plan which they had every right to do.

The Zionists went ahead to create their state anyway even though they had no legal right to do so.
Incorrect. The plan only had to be approved by a majority of UN members- and it was.

We followed UN 181 and established our state.

The Arabs violently rejected UN 181 and chose war INSTEAD OF a state.

The end.

Not true. The UN Security Council did not implement the plan because to do so without the approval of the Palestinians, would have violated international law and the UN Charter.

The plan was indeed implemented for those who accepted it. Modern Israel was established and found both international recognition and UN membership. The Arabs founded squalid "refugee" camps and rejectionism. :D
 
From UN 181 (Can't yet post links, but it's from The Avalon Project at Yale Law School):

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE

The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.

The armed forces of the mandatory Power shall be progressively withdrawn from Palestine, the withdrawal to be completed as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.

The mandatory Power shall advise the Commission, as far in advance as possible, of its intention to terminate the mandate and to evacuate each area. The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.

Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below.

The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation on the question of Palestine and the establishment of the independence of the Arab and Jewish States shall be a transitional period.
 
It should be clear to all with even a passing interest in the conflict that the Arab "refugees" are nothing but a pawn of the region's powers...

So, they're sort of like Democrats and Republicans in the US?
 

Forum List

Back
Top