The Jews and the Native Americans

[Michelle420]

Israel has been ethnically cleansing the land of its indigenous people since Israel was created in 1948. From 1947 to 1949, they ethnically cleansed the land of 750,000 of its inhabitants. They steal and kill, that is the Zionist way.


Sherri

Or have they just defended their purchase of land much the same way we have ours?

The land was not purchased.

Can you provide an article on the same topic the background music is distracting. Plus, Ilan Pappe, a member of the (Hadash) Communist Party not sure how objective he is.

I will read it.

 

[Michelle420]

Israel has been ethnically cleansing the land of its indigenous people since Israel was created in 1948. From 1947 to 1949, they ethnically cleansed the land of 750,000 of its inhabitants. They steal and kill, that is the Zionist way.


Sherri

Or have they just defended their purchase of land much the same way we have ours?

we bought manhattan for trinkets from a people who had no concept of the ownership of the land....well, or so the story goes.

i think you are going to run into a lot of difficulty when you try to justify relatively recent events based upon events of the past.

you refer to an event that happened centuries ago for the most part to justify a current situation/problem. do you own slaves. it was common a couple of hundred years ago. personally, i am opposed to it.

I am not trying to justify anything if you read my first post, I admittedly acknowledged my limited education on the Israel situation.

It does not mean I can't pose my own questions to you and others, and it doesn't mean I can't compare what seems to be the same thing to me.

If you want to educate me then post facts, documents and articles.

Again, my understanding is this whole fight is about a strip of land that was purchased by Israel and once it flourished the palestinians wanted it back.

It just reminds me of the same argument that mexican illegals make at us, that we stole the land even though we purchased it.

No need to be defensive, it's a discussion.

 

[sealadaigh]

Or have they just defended their purchase of land much the same way we have ours?

we bought manhattan for trinkets from a people who had no concept of the ownership of the land....well, or so the story goes.

i think you are going to run into a lot of difficulty when you try to justify relatively recent events based upon events of the past.

you refer to an event that happened centuries ago for the most part to justify a current situation/problem. do you own slaves. it was common a couple of hundred years ago. personally, i am opposed to it.

I am not trying to justify anything if you read my first post, I admittedly acknowledged my limited education on the Israel situation.

It does not mean I can't pose my own questions to you and others, and it doesn't mean I can't compare what seems to be the same thing to me.

If you want to educate me then post facts, documents and articles.

Again, my understanding is this whole fight is about a strip of land that was purchased by Israel and once it flourished the palestinians wanted it back.

It just reminds me of the same argument that mexican illegals make at us, that we stole the land even though we purchased it.

No need to be defensive, it's a discussion.

i'm sorry if i was abrasive. it is the nature of this board.

i am not sure what you mean by mexican illegals or of what specifically you are speaking. the spanish colonised central america and south america the same way the british and french colonised north america so it is kind of hard to compare.

also, latino/mexican/hispanic people are an ethnicity, as are french, british, palestinians etc. israelis are jewish and that is a religious designation, not an ethnicity, at least how the israelis practice it. i, an irish catholic, could become a jewish person. you cannot convert to an ethnicity.

that, i think, is a big monkey wrentch in the various arguments.

i think you have to boil it down and make a general statement and then say that general statement applies to all people. people call me anti-semitic because i believe that "the rules" should apply equally to all people. i just shrug my shoulders now and occasionally give baack what i get. the real fact of the matter is most people caalled anti-semites are called so because of their opposition to israel. that is rificulous.

 

[Michelle420]

we bought manhattan for trinkets from a people who had no concept of the ownership of the land....well, or so the story goes.

i think you are going to run into a lot of difficulty when you try to justify relatively recent events based upon events of the past.

you refer to an event that happened centuries ago for the most part to justify a current situation/problem. do you own slaves. it was common a couple of hundred years ago. personally, i am opposed to it.

I am not trying to justify anything if you read my first post, I admittedly acknowledged my limited education on the Israel situation.

It does not mean I can't pose my own questions to you and others, and it doesn't mean I can't compare what seems to be the same thing to me.

If you want to educate me then post facts, documents and articles.

Again, my understanding is this whole fight is about a strip of land that was purchased by Israel and once it flourished the palestinians wanted it back.

It just reminds me of the same argument that mexican illegals make at us, that we stole the land even though we purchased it.

No need to be defensive, it's a discussion.

i'm sorry if i was abrasive. it is the nature of this board.

i am not sure what you mean by mexican illegals or of what specifically you are speaking. the spanish colonised central america and south america the same way the british and french colonised north america so it is kind of hard to compare.

also, latino/mexican/hispanic people are an ethnicity, as are french, british, palestinians etc. israelis are jewish and that is a religious designation, not an ethnicity, at least how the israelis practice it. i, an irish catholic, could become a jewish person. you cannot convert to an ethnicity.

that, i think, is a big monkey wrentch in the various arguments.

i think you have to boil it down and make a general statement and then say that general statement applies to all people. people call me anti-semitic because i believe that "the rules" should apply equally to all people. i just shrug my shoulders now and occasionally give baack what i get. the real fact of the matter is most people caalled anti-semites are called so because of their opposition to israel. that is rificulous.

What I was talking about is groups like La Raza who say we basically stole the land from mexico and the retort I have read in response is treaty of guadalupe hidalgo, meaning we bought the land strip they are accusing us of stealing.

Now what i have heard is that Israel bought the strip of land and it was barren then flourished and when it flourished the palestinians wanted the land back and acted like it was stolen.

Since I haven't read any land deed documents on treaty of guadalupe hidalgo or purchase of gaza strip, I could be ignorant.

Still, for sake of discussion if we purchased texas and the mexicans want it back because they feel we did it sneakily should we give it back ?

If Israel purchased the land why do they have to give it back?

That's what I am getting at.

As far as making something about a group of people when the reality is not the people but something the peoples countries leaders do, well saying anything has to do with "jews" is like the muslims blaming all americans.

Americans vote and sometimes the candidate they chose doesn't win, also sometimes policies go through that some americans don't agree with.

I think blaming a group of people instead of policy or politics can be ignorant.

 

[MHunterB]

Lets' pretend "holocaust" was true ,, Israel commits the same as "holocaust" against Muslims in Palestine everyday

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to flowery For This Useful Post:
reabhloideach (Today), SherriMunnerlyn (Today)

So, you two 'people of conscience': it didn't faze you any to support a Holocaust denier?

The Holocaust is not the issue, I could care less how anyone feels about it. The issue is Israel Palestine.

You seem unable to understand, sherrikins: If a person insists that 'the Holocaust didn't really happen', they are in denial of a great many facts, 50+ million records by the Nazis of their genocide against others (not 'just' Jews).

When a person can deny such thoroughly-documented events as the Nazi deliberate intentional planned murders of millions for simply not being 'Aryan' enough - they have shown themselves to be a most unreliable reporter of events. IE, their word cannot be trusted.

It's not about anyone's "feeeewings": it's about facts.

And incidentally, by your 'I could care less how anyone feels about the Holocaust' - you've as much as told us all of your willingness to embrace the people who are HAPPY about those events.

But of course you tried to claim I'm a 'heartless *****'.......... go figure?

 

[MHunterB]

"The land was not purchased."

So you claim - but where's the proof that's accurate?

"Ilan Pappe says" carries no weight. Try again: he is LYING if he said that. Just like he LIES about the 'ethnic cleansing', just like he LIES about so many other issues.

Half of the 'Old Yishuv' settlements were built on land purchased for exactly that purpose, purchased legally from the legitimate owners of it at the time, well over a hundred years ago. What point can there be in denying basic facts such as that?

I keep telling you, l'il sherrithang: the Palestinians do not need the 'advocacy' of those who exaggerate unto idiocy or flat-out lie. Seems to me you are actually 'invested' in hating Israel and Zionists, rather than trying to do anything positive for the Palestinians like I've been doing since I started with Hadassah.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"It happened on the day after Independence Day, when Israel was immersed in praise of itself and its democracy almost ad nauseam, and on the eve of (virtually outlawed ) Nakba Day, when the Palestinian people mark the "catastrophe" - the anniversary of the creation of Israel. My colleague Akiva Eldar published what we have always known but for which we lacked the shocking figures he revealed: By the time of the Oslo Accords, Israel had revoked the residency of 140,000 Palestinians from the West Bank. In other words, 14 percent of West Bank residents who dared to go abroad had their right to return to Israel and live here denied forever. In other words, they were expelled from their land and their homes. In other words: ethnic cleansing.While we are still desperately concealing, denying and repressing our major ethnic cleansing of 1948 - over 600,000 refugees, some who fled for fear of the Israel Defense Forces and its predecessors, some who were expelled by force - it turns out that 1948 never ended, that its spirit is still with us. Also with us is the goal of trying to cleanse this land of its Arab inhabitants as much as possible, and even a bit more. After all, that's the most covert and desired solution: the Land of Israel for the Jews, for them alone. A few people dared to say it outright - Rabbi Meir Kahane, Minister Rehavam Ze'evi and their disciples, who deserve a certain amount of praise for their integrity. Many aspire to do the same thing without admitting it." Ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, or, democratic Israel at work - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, part II

by*Ben White*on July 29, 2010*85. "Mondoweiss has already*reported*the*demolition*of Bedouin Palestinian homes in an-Naqab in the south of Israel. Neve Gordon and*others*have correctly*contextualised the events in terms of the wider strategic aims of 'Judaising' the Negev.The following*story*appeared in Ha'aretz the same day as armed forced and bulldozers razed Arab homes. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, part II | Mondoweiss

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Why did you start with WW2, Kevin? Why don't you look a bit further back - if you want to discuss the actual history and not merely some fantasy scenario?

NOTHING in your intial premise is accurate. For example, the land once known as 'Judea' fell into the hands of the 'Muslims'....... do you think all Muslims are the same? The land was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, ruled by (non Arab) Turks.

Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but it does affect your scenario.

I'd also like to know what you, Kevin, think is meant by 'Zionism'?

Here's the root of what I'm getting at.

Israel (as it exists today) did not exist prior to WWII and the mass flight of the Jews. As I understand it, it was Britain who created it's borders, and it was NOT well received by the powers who resided in that region (as evidence by the war that broke out shortly thereafter).

Is it okay for a foreign entity/government/ect to draw out the borders of a nation without the consent of those currently in power, currently living in the region where the borders are being drawn?
.

Actually you understand VERY little. The Jews have been in the land of Israel from the biblical times. There have been mass expulsions going back 100s of years ago nad many times of Jews regaining the lands to self-rule to just lose them years later. Jews have ALWAYS made up a large part of Jerusalem's population. Whent the Arab Crusaders/Caliphates entered Jerusalem lead by the great warlord, child rapist and mass murdering theft Mohammad, the Jews were the majority of Jerusalem's population. Whent he Christian Crusaders invaded Jerusalem, Jews were fighting along side Muslims against the Christians. The lands passed eventually to the Ottomans/Turks. The Turks PURPOSELY suppressed populations and during the Turkish rule of the lands, the population was at it most sparse.

The only creditable account of the population back then was Mark Twain. He said it best the lands had few people upon them.

Mark Twain in the Holy Land | Zionism and the State of Israel
“….. A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds… a silent mournful expanse…. a desolation…. we never saw a human being on the whole route…. hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”

He was amazed by the smallness of the city of Jerusalem:

“A fast walker could go outside the walls of Jerusalem and walk entirely around the city in an hour. I do not know how else to make one understand how small it is.”

And he described the Temple Mount thus:

“The mighty Mosque of Omar, and the paved court around it, occupy a fourth part of Jerusalem. They are upon Mount Moriah, where King Solomon’s Temple stood. This Mosque is the holiest place the Mohammedan knows, outside of Mecca. Up to within a year or two past, no christian could gain admission to it or its court for love or money. But the prohibition has been removed, and we entered freely for bucksheesh.”

However, even during this time the Jews were the MAJORITY in Jerusalem.

The during the late 1800s and early 1900s many Jews migrated back to their homeland. Heck Tel Aviv was founded in 1906! This was before WW II. Muslims migrated to the lands starting around this time also. However, it wasn't until the BRITISH WHITE PAPER days that the Muslims migrated in mass numbers. The Jews were building up the lands and forming the infrastructure to create an economic with a lot of opportunity. It was the only place at the time in the middle east, African or Asia that was doing this. The Arabs wanted in on the party and many migrated to the lands. During the British White Paper period, Jewish migration was forbiden, but Muslim immigration went unchecked. Muslims could come and they were never even checked! This is when the vast majority of the Arabs (and their dissendents) that call themselves Palestinians migrated to Israel.

You know nothing mental midget!

Very good post.

 

[sealadaigh]

I am not trying to justify anything if you read my first post, I admittedly acknowledged my limited education on the Israel situation.

It does not mean I can't pose my own questions to you and others, and it doesn't mean I can't compare what seems to be the same thing to me.

If you want to educate me then post facts, documents and articles.

Again, my understanding is this whole fight is about a strip of land that was purchased by Israel and once it flourished the palestinians wanted it back.

It just reminds me of the same argument that mexican illegals make at us, that we stole the land even though we purchased it.

No need to be defensive, it's a discussion.

i'm sorry if i was abrasive. it is the nature of this board.

i am not sure what you mean by mexican illegals or of what specifically you are speaking. the spanish colonised central america and south america the same way the british and french colonised north america so it is kind of hard to compare.

also, latino/mexican/hispanic people are an ethnicity, as are french, british, palestinians etc. israelis are jewish and that is a religious designation, not an ethnicity, at least how the israelis practice it. i, an irish catholic, could become a jewish person. you cannot convert to an ethnicity.

that, i think, is a big monkey wrentch in the various arguments.

i think you have to boil it down and make a general statement and then say that general statement applies to all people. people call me anti-semitic because i believe that "the rules" should apply equally to all people. i just shrug my shoulders now and occasionally give baack what i get. the real fact of the matter is most people caalled anti-semites are called so because of their opposition to israel. that is rificulous.

What I was talking about is groups like La Raza who say we basically stole the land from mexico and the retort I have read in response is treaty of guadalupe hidalgo, meaning we bought the land strip they are accusing us of stealing.

Now what i have heard is that Israel bought the strip of land and it was barren then flourished and when it flourished the palestinians wanted the land back and acted like it was stolen.

Since I haven't read any land deed documents on treaty of guadalupe hidalgo or purchase of gaza strip, I could be ignorant.

Still, for sake of discussion if we purchased texas and the mexicans want it back because they feel we did it sneakily should we give it back ?

If Israel purchased the land why do they have to give it back?

That's what I am getting at.

As far as making something about a group of people when the reality is not the people but something the peoples countries leaders do, well saying anything has to do with "jews" is like the muslims blaming all americans.

Americans vote and sometimes the candidate they chose doesn't win, also sometimes policies go through that some americans don't agree with.

I think blaming a group of people instead of policy or politics can be ignorant.

the tresty of guadalupe hildago is unclear and has been amended a few times. it is not really a topic for this board. if we discuss it here, our posts will probably be erased.

you heard wrong, but even if you heard right, so what? the palestinians were there and a european religious group displaced them from their homes. personally, i think they were duped as much as anyone else.

what i would like you to do is try to express it in genral terms...or i can.

do you think a religious group has a right to displace a native people to establish a state based upon that religion?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"Certainly, the Palestinian Arabs can reflect that when Roberts drew Jerusalem, the Jewish population of the land can have numbered scarcely*10*per cent of the total. There had always been a continued physical Jewish presence there over the centuries; it was for the Jews too an ancient homeland. But eight years before Roberts sat on that hilltop above the city, there were only*24,000Jews living in Palestine.1*Browse through the second-hand bookshops of Beirut or Jerusalem, however, and the ghosts begin to appear. In*1835, for example, just five years after Roberts had sketched the recumbent city of Jerusalem, we find the French writer Alphonse de Lamartine returning from a visit there to recommend to his readers in*VOYAGE TO THE ORIENT**that since Palestine did not really constitute a country, it presented remarkable opportunities for imperial or colonial projects.Within*60*years, the nineteenth-century fascination with the Middle East begins to lose its romantic edge, even for the most mundane travellers. In a broken-backed*1892*edition of John Murray’s*HANDBOOK FOR TRAVELLERS IN SYRIA AND PALESTINE**which I bought in an antiquarian bookshop in west Beirut, a volume with a faded title in gold on its pale red cover, I discovered an item entitled ‘Muslim Arabs’. These people are, we are told, ‘proud, fanatical and illiterate ... generally noble in bearing, polite in address, and profuse in hospitality; but they are regardless of truth, dishonest in their dealings and secretly immoral in their conduct.’ The Jews, on the other hand, were in the guidebook’s opinion ‘the most interesting people in the land ... The Jews of Palestine are foreigners. They have come from every country on earth ... of late years there has been a remarkable influx of Jews into Palestine, but the Turkish government are striving to hinder their settlement by every means in their power.’This is cold-blooded business indeed, just as was the Balfour Declaration of*1917*that gave Britain’s support to a Jewish homeland providing that ‘nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine’. The equally earnest Anglo-French Declaration of*1918*promising the Arabs of former Ottoman colonies their independence if they supported the Allies against the Turks fell into much the same category, although it was not a promise that was intended to be kept. As Balfour himself said the following year, ‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country.’ So far as Balfour was concerned, Zionism was ‘of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the*700,000*Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land [of Palestine]’3*The slaughter on the Somme and at Passchendaele had helped to bring about these conflicting pledges, just as a far more terrible massacre would in the second great European war virtually guarantee the creation of the Jewish state in Palestine. Against these historical profanities, the descendants of those colourfully dressed figures in Roberts’ lithographs stood no hope...." Robert Fisk - The Keys to Palestine

 

[sealadaigh]

Here's the root of what I'm getting at.

Israel (as it exists today) did not exist prior to WWII and the mass flight of the Jews. As I understand it, it was Britain who created it's borders, and it was NOT well received by the powers who resided in that region (as evidence by the war that broke out shortly thereafter).

Is it okay for a foreign entity/government/ect to draw out the borders of a nation without the consent of those currently in power, currently living in the region where the borders are being drawn?
.

Actually you understand VERY little. The Jews have been in the land of Israel from the biblical times. There have been mass expulsions going back 100s of years ago nad many times of Jews regaining the lands to self-rule to just lose them years later. Jews have ALWAYS made up a large part of Jerusalem's population. Whent the Arab Crusaders/Caliphates entered Jerusalem lead by the great warlord, child rapist and mass murdering theft Mohammad, the Jews were the majority of Jerusalem's population. Whent he Christian Crusaders invaded Jerusalem, Jews were fighting along side Muslims against the Christians. The lands passed eventually to the Ottomans/Turks. The Turks PURPOSELY suppressed populations and during the Turkish rule of the lands, the population was at it most sparse.

The only creditable account of the population back then was Mark Twain. He said it best the lands had few people upon them.

Mark Twain in the Holy Land | Zionism and the State of Israel
“….. A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds… a silent mournful expanse…. a desolation…. we never saw a human being on the whole route…. hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”

He was amazed by the smallness of the city of Jerusalem:

“A fast walker could go outside the walls of Jerusalem and walk entirely around the city in an hour. I do not know how else to make one understand how small it is.”

And he described the Temple Mount thus:

“The mighty Mosque of Omar, and the paved court around it, occupy a fourth part of Jerusalem. They are upon Mount Moriah, where King Solomon’s Temple stood. This Mosque is the holiest place the Mohammedan knows, outside of Mecca. Up to within a year or two past, no christian could gain admission to it or its court for love or money. But the prohibition has been removed, and we entered freely for bucksheesh.”

However, even during this time the Jews were the MAJORITY in Jerusalem.

The during the late 1800s and early 1900s many Jews migrated back to their homeland. Heck Tel Aviv was founded in 1906! This was before WW II. Muslims migrated to the lands starting around this time also. However, it wasn't until the BRITISH WHITE PAPER days that the Muslims migrated in mass numbers. The Jews were building up the lands and forming the infrastructure to create an economic with a lot of opportunity. It was the only place at the time in the middle east, African or Asia that was doing this. The Arabs wanted in on the party and many migrated to the lands. During the British White Paper period, Jewish migration was forbiden, but Muslim immigration went unchecked. Muslims could come and they were never even checked! This is when the vast majority of the Arabs (and their dissendents) that call themselves Palestinians migrated to Israel.

You know nothing mental midget!

Very good post.

not really. religion may have its' indigenous origins to a region but the practitioners of that religion are not, as a rule, indigenous. "homelands" are based upon ethnicity. i find it hard to believe that there is a strong ethnic/genetic connection between a black ethiopean jew and a blonde haired, blue eyed russian jew.

 

[MHunterB]

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, part II

by*Ben White*on July 29, 2010*85. "Mondoweiss has already*reported*the*demolition*of Bedouin Palestinian homes in an-Naqab in the south of Israel. Neve Gordon and*others*have correctly*contextualised the events in terms of the wider strategic aims of 'Judaising' the Negev.The following*story*appeared in Ha'aretz the same day as armed forced and bulldozers razed Arab homes. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, part II | Mondoweiss

Quotes from Mondoscheisse aren't going to convince anyone of anything except that the poster who insists on pretending that's a reliable source of information is a lunatic ideologue.

Now, that 'proof' that Jews never purchased land in Israel as you claimed? Where's that?

 

[Michelle420]

i'm sorry if i was abrasive. it is the nature of this board.

i am not sure what you mean by mexican illegals or of what specifically you are speaking. the spanish colonised central america and south america the same way the british and french colonised north america so it is kind of hard to compare.

also, latino/mexican/hispanic people are an ethnicity, as are french, british, palestinians etc. israelis are jewish and that is a religious designation, not an ethnicity, at least how the israelis practice it. i, an irish catholic, could become a jewish person. you cannot convert to an ethnicity.

that, i think, is a big monkey wrentch in the various arguments.

i think you have to boil it down and make a general statement and then say that general statement applies to all people. people call me anti-semitic because i believe that "the rules" should apply equally to all people. i just shrug my shoulders now and occasionally give baack what i get. the real fact of the matter is most people caalled anti-semites are called so because of their opposition to israel. that is rificulous.

What I was talking about is groups like La Raza who say we basically stole the land from mexico and the retort I have read in response is treaty of guadalupe hidalgo, meaning we bought the land strip they are accusing us of stealing.

Now what i have heard is that Israel bought the strip of land and it was barren then flourished and when it flourished the palestinians wanted the land back and acted like it was stolen.

Since I haven't read any land deed documents on treaty of guadalupe hidalgo or purchase of gaza strip, I could be ignorant.

Still, for sake of discussion if we purchased texas and the mexicans want it back because they feel we did it sneakily should we give it back ?

If Israel purchased the land why do they have to give it back?

That's what I am getting at.

As far as making something about a group of people when the reality is not the people but something the peoples countries leaders do, well saying anything has to do with "jews" is like the muslims blaming all americans.

Americans vote and sometimes the candidate they chose doesn't win, also sometimes policies go through that some americans don't agree with.

I think blaming a group of people instead of policy or politics can be ignorant.

the tresty of guadalupe hildago is unclear and has been amended a few times. it is not really a topic for this board. if we discuss it here, our posts will probably be erased.

you heard wrong, but even if you heard right, so what? the palestinians were there and a european religious group displaced them from their homes. personally, i think they were duped as much as anyone else.

what i would like you to do is try to express it in genral terms...or i can.

do you think a religious group has a right to displace a native people to establish a state based upon that religion?

Religion would not make a difference to me, so you can just ask should any group have a right to displace another group of people if that displaced group was there first?

Then we have to get philosophical and define what "rights" does any group or person have in originating a right to claim something as solely and exclusively their own and how can they establish that right without a collective group effort to protect it, they would need a tribe, government willing to share and protect those rights.

Territory is a human construction made to establish order and a way to be civilized in the hierarchy of needs, all human beings have the same basic needs.

Nobody really has a right to claim the earth as their own, humans are just inherently greedy it seems.

 

[MHunterB]

Actually you understand VERY little. The Jews have been in the land of Israel from the biblical times. There have been mass expulsions going back 100s of years ago nad many times of Jews regaining the lands to self-rule to just lose them years later. Jews have ALWAYS made up a large part of Jerusalem's population. Whent the Arab Crusaders/Caliphates entered Jerusalem lead by the great warlord, child rapist and mass murdering theft Mohammad, the Jews were the majority of Jerusalem's population. Whent he Christian Crusaders invaded Jerusalem, Jews were fighting along side Muslims against the Christians. The lands passed eventually to the Ottomans/Turks. The Turks PURPOSELY suppressed populations and during the Turkish rule of the lands, the population was at it most sparse.

The only creditable account of the population back then was Mark Twain. He said it best the lands had few people upon them.




However, even during this time the Jews were the MAJORITY in Jerusalem.

The during the late 1800s and early 1900s many Jews migrated back to their homeland. Heck Tel Aviv was founded in 1906! This was before WW II. Muslims migrated to the lands starting around this time also. However, it wasn't until the BRITISH WHITE PAPER days that the Muslims migrated in mass numbers. The Jews were building up the lands and forming the infrastructure to create an economic with a lot of opportunity. It was the only place at the time in the middle east, African or Asia that was doing this. The Arabs wanted in on the party and many migrated to the lands. During the British White Paper period, Jewish migration was forbiden, but Muslim immigration went unchecked. Muslims could come and they were never even checked! This is when the vast majority of the Arabs (and their dissendents) that call themselves Palestinians migrated to Israel.

You know nothing mental midget!

Very good post.

not really. religion may have its' indigenous origins to a region but the practitioners of that religion are not, as a rule, indigenous. "homelands" are based upon ethnicity. i find it hard to believe that there is a strong ethnic/genetic connection between a black ethiopean jew and a blonde haired, blue eyed russian jew.

One needn't find it easy to believe for a thing to be true. WEB DuBois and his wife had a blonde, blue-eyed daughter. She died while they were living in the South, because she became very ill. Her parents knew their daughter could get better care at a 'white' hospital - but they also knew they'd likely be charged with kidnapping if they tried to bring her for treatment. A terrible situation : ((

I notice a certain group of people always like to 'illustrate' with blond/e 'Russian' Jews......I've got a great many relatives who are very Slavic in looks: short slight brunets. The 'Rus' are another ethnic group entirely - half-Scandinavian like the famed 'Varangian Guard'.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"The first Palestinian exodusThis territorial expansion by the use of force resulted in a large-scale exodus of refugees from the areas of hostilities. Palestinians allege that this was part of a deliberate policy to displace Palestinian Arabs to make room for immigrants, and quote Zionist sources, including Herzl:"We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country."Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly".*69/Herzl's plans in respect of the size of the Jewish State are cited as another item of evidence of this policy. Describing a 1939 meeting with Churchill, Weizmann writes:"... (I) thanked him for his unceasing interest in Zionist affairs. I said: 'You have stood at the cradle of the enterprise. I hope you will see it through'. Then I added that after the war we would want to build up a State of three or four million Jews in Palestine. His answer was: 'Yes, I quite agree with that'."*70/Palestinians also charge that the terrorizing of the civilian population through military or psychological means was an integral part of this policy of expelling Palestinians, and again cite Zionist writings:"... Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country ... We shall not achieve our goal of being an independent people with the Arabs in this small country. The only solution is a Palestine, at least western Palestine (west of the Jordan river) without Arabs ... And there is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to transfer all of them; not one village, not one tribe, should be left ... Only after this transfer will the country be able to absorb the millions of our own brethren. There is no other way out;..."*71/One of the most notorious cases of the terrorizing of civilian population occurred, according to Palestinian and other sources, in April 1948 at Deir Yassin, a village near Jerusalem, situated in territory assigned to the Jewish State by the partition resolution. A former Israeli military governor of Jerusalem writes:"We suffered a reverse of a different nature on April 9 when combined Etzel and Stern Gang units mounted a deliberate and unprovoked attack on the Arab village of Deir Yassin on the western edge of Jerusalem. There was no reason for the attack. It was a quiet village, which had denied entry to the volunteer Arab units from across the frontier and which had not been involved in any attacks on Jewish areas. The dissident groups chose it for strictly political reasons. It was a deliberate act of terrorism ..."... Women and children had not been given time enough to evacuate the village,...." The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part II: 1947-1977 (30 June 1979)

 

[MHunterB]

Israel became a Kingdom in 1020 B.C.

There has never been a Palestine Nation nor Kingdom.
The Palestine State was created in 1964 (made up) by Yasser Arafat and other Arab nations. The Palestinian state is still more of a plan or ideal than an actual entity.

and israel ceased to be a kingdom 2000 years ago.

palestinian and arab culture have a different relationship with the land than european people. they are a tribal people and tribal peoples generally do not have what we define as nations. many cultures are like that.

try to respect the values and styles of other cultures instead of assuming that your culture's style is superior. it may be for you but not necessarily for them.

That bolded sentence certainly appears to be an argument that 'Palestinians' are not a 'nation' after all.

As to the 'respect the values and styles of other cultures instead of assuming that your culture's style is superior' - that is spectacular in its irony. Kudos!

 

[sealadaigh]

What I was talking about is groups like La Raza who say we basically stole the land from mexico and the retort I have read in response is treaty of guadalupe hidalgo, meaning we bought the land strip they are accusing us of stealing.

Now what i have heard is that Israel bought the strip of land and it was barren then flourished and when it flourished the palestinians wanted the land back and acted like it was stolen.

Since I haven't read any land deed documents on treaty of guadalupe hidalgo or purchase of gaza strip, I could be ignorant.

Still, for sake of discussion if we purchased texas and the mexicans want it back because they feel we did it sneakily should we give it back ?

If Israel purchased the land why do they have to give it back?

That's what I am getting at.

As far as making something about a group of people when the reality is not the people but something the peoples countries leaders do, well saying anything has to do with "jews" is like the muslims blaming all americans.

Americans vote and sometimes the candidate they chose doesn't win, also sometimes policies go through that some americans don't agree with.

I think blaming a group of people instead of policy or politics can be ignorant.

the tresty of guadalupe hildago is unclear and has been amended a few times. it is not really a topic for this board. if we discuss it here, our posts will probably be erased.

you heard wrong, but even if you heard right, so what? the palestinians were there and a european religious group displaced them from their homes. personally, i think they were duped as much as anyone else.

what i would like you to do is try to express it in genral terms...or i can.

do you think a religious group has a right to displace a native people to establish a state based upon that religion?

Religion would not make a difference to me, so you can just ask should any group have a right to displace another group of people if that displaced group was there first?

Then we have to get philosophical and define what "rights" does any group or person have in originating a right to claim something as solely and exclusively their own and how can they establish that right without a collective group effort to protect it, they would need a tribe, government willing to share and protect those rights.

Territory is a human construction made to establish order and a way to be civilized in the hierarchy of needs, all human beings have the same basic needs.

Nobody really has a right to claim the earth as their own, humans are just inherently greedy it seems.

jews are a religious group. that is the basis of their claim.

so you think every group based upon whatever has a right to stake a claim on any land they have inhabited at some arbitrary point in time that they choose.

it was not the palestinians that chased those adherents of judaism out of the holy land nor was it the palestinians who slaughtered millions of jews in the mid 1900s, but they are the ones paying the price.

i no longer think you are seeking education on the issue as you claim. i think you are avoiding questions, dismissing arguments, and pursueing an agenda.

i have yet to see anyone come up with a general rule that applies to all people that accurately reflects the creation of israel. that is what equal treaatment is all about.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Says who ????

Please don't twist the truth

The Torah (the Jewish Holly Book) itself indicate that the Canaanites (the Arabs ) have the former presence in Palestine

and by the way there are no book cursing Jews as the Torah itself
And the earth is not signed by anyone only one of obey God

Ah the idiocy of Nazis...

No Adolf, the Canaanites were not Arabs and there were no Arabs in the region at the time.

The Arabs migrated from North Africa during the 2nd to 4th century AD. As the power of Rome waned, the Africans were able to waltz in and take over. The Medes were virtually wiped out, the Persians were driven back to Iran, Babylon had been sacked by Rome and never recovered, it was ripe for the taking. So the Arabs from Libya, Morocco, Egypt, et al, fled the droughts that were decimating North Africa.

The Assyrian, Mede, Persian, and Greek populations were all genetically Caucasian. The Arabs are African genetically. They were not a significant presence until Rome withdrew.

 

[Michelle420]

the tresty of guadalupe hildago is unclear and has been amended a few times. it is not really a topic for this board. if we discuss it here, our posts will probably be erased.

you heard wrong, but even if you heard right, so what? the palestinians were there and a european religious group displaced them from their homes. personally, i think they were duped as much as anyone else.

what i would like you to do is try to express it in genral terms...or i can.

do you think a religious group has a right to displace a native people to establish a state based upon that religion?

Religion would not make a difference to me, so you can just ask should any group have a right to displace another group of people if that displaced group was there first?

Then we have to get philosophical and define what "rights" does any group or person have in originating a right to claim something as solely and exclusively their own and how can they establish that right without a collective group effort to protect it, they would need a tribe, government willing to share and protect those rights.

Territory is a human construction made to establish order and a way to be civilized in the hierarchy of needs, all human beings have the same basic needs.

Nobody really has a right to claim the earth as their own, humans are just inherently greedy it seems.

jews are a religious group. that is the basis of their claim.

so you think every group based upon whatever has a right to stake a claim on any land they have inhabited at some arbitrary point in time that they choose.

it was not the palestinians that chased those adherents of judaism out of the holy land nor was it the palestinians who slaughtered millions of jews in the mid 1900s, but they are the ones paying the price.

i no longer think you are seeking education on the issue as you claim. i think you are avoiding questions, dismissing arguments, and pursueing an agenda.

i have yet to see anyone come up with a general rule that applies to all people that accurately reflects the creation of israel. that is what equal treaatment is all about.

I think we have enough food, materials for shelter and water for everyone and because human beings are greedy they form tribes, governments and religions as a social construct to monopolize territories, it's seems to be inherent greed in humans.

Any opinion on which group is right is going to be bias.

The bias lies in which groups socially constructed story you adhere to.

Those stories may come to you from family traditions, patriotism, politics, religions, friends or some momental past experience that left an impact or imprint forming an allegiance to some group or cause.

If you strip away bias and indoctrination from the equation, all humans have the same basic needs and if one has a right to a basic need all humans have the same rights to basic needs.