Israel, Palestine and the Arab/Israel Conflict

[aaa]

The Mufti of Jerusalem , their principal spokesman, refused to accept Jewish statehood . When UN proposed partition in November 1947, he rejected the plan while the Jews accepted it . In the military struggle that followed, the Palestinians were defeated . Violence was used on both sides.

Israel was established on May 14, 1948. Five Arab armies , coming to the aid of the Palestinians , immediately attacked it. Uncoordinated and outnumbered, they were defeated by Israeli forces. Israel enlarged its territory . Jordan took the West Bank of the Jordan River, and Egypt took the Gaza Strip. ( Israel occupied these lands after the Six Day War of 1967.)

http://www.palestinehistory.com/palst.htm

 

[aaa]

Arab leaders urged Arabs to leave the area so they would not be caught in the crossfire. They could return to their homes, they were told, after Israel was crushed and the Jews destroyed. It didn't work out that way. By most counts, several hundred thousand Arabs were displaced by this war not by Israeli aggression, not by some Jewish real-estate grab, not by Israeli expansionism. In fact, there are many historical records showing the Jews urged the Arabs to stay and live with them in peace. But, tragically, they chose to leave.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/farrah_jews.htm

 

[aaa]

The current myth is that these Arabs were long established in Palestine, until the Jews came and "displaced" them. The fact is, that recent Arab immigration into Palestine "displaced" the Jews. That the massive increase in Arab population was very recent is attested by the ruling of the United Nations: That any Arab who had lived in Palestine for two years and then left in 1948 qualifies as a "Palestinian refugees".

Casual use of population statistics for Jews and Arabs in Palestine rarely consider how the proportions came to be. One factor was the British policy of keeping out Jews while bringing in Arabs. Another factor was the violence used to kill or drive out Jews even where they had been long established.

For one example: The Jewish connection with Hebron goes back to Abraham, and there has been an Israelite/Jewish community there since Joshua long before it was King David's first capital. In 1929, Arab rioters with the passive consent of the British -- killed or drove out virtually the entire Jewish community.

For another example: In 1948, Trans-Jordan seized much of Judea and Samaria (which they called The West Bank) and East Jerusalem and the Old City. They killed or drove out every Jew

http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/palestinians/truth.html

 

[outlandish]

heh... what about the British Mandate (1917-1948)?
so i guess the british people stole the land of the palestinians.

the UN decided to split the country to a jewish state and to an arab state.
THAT IS A FACT, you idiot.

so, instead of living together in peace, the arabs simply started the war in 1948.
THAT IS A FACT TOO, now bugger off.

the occupation only started in 67', due the arabs to strat another war.
they should have been trying to understand and talk, instead of starting wars.
ISN'T THAT A FACT THAT THE ARABS STARTED THE WARS IN 48', 67'???

ISN'T THAT A FACT THAT THE OCCUPATION STARTED ONLY BECAUSE OF
ARAB AGRESSION AGAINST ISRAEL?

or perhaps you have a better way to say it, such as blaming the jews in
everything... - "stealing" the land? occupation? "brutality"? you are the idiot.

now you really are showing how pathetic + inept at arguing a point you really are, the fact that you have no point to argue in the first place is your only saving grace.

the UN decided to split the country to a jewish state and to an arab state.
THAT IS A FACT, you idiot.

you really have such a hard time identifying the dialectic issues, and then differentiating the various concepts its amazing:

control over land via any political movement or ideology such as colonialisation and/or imperialisation DOES NOT AND CAN NEVER give more valid inherent RIGHTS to that land over the ingiginous peoples of that land who have a greater right on anthropological/historical grounds

UN? your telling me the UN has more inherent rights to the land than the indiginous peoples of that land?
get real please.

simply stating X over and over again doesnt make X true despite your percptions...your in ability to distinguish actuall core issues with bullshit irrelevancies is amazing.

so, instead of living together in peace, the arabs simply started the war in 1948.
THAT IS A FACT TOO, now bugger off.

again with this BS.

now you're just embarassing yourself, and it's blatantly obvious you haven't read any of my previous posts.

you had no credibilty in this thread before I started on your ass....now I dont even have to humiliate you any more....you are doing that to yourself.

ad hom attacks on me are no refutation to anything.

it's time you did yourself a favour and quit while you still have a modicum of dignity left.

 

[aaa]

wow... what a great reply...

getting tired of typing, or is there anything you would like to say?
i guess you're just avoiding from answering my questions.
well, this one is a REALL pathetic excuse:

"UN? your telling me the UN has more inherent rights to the land than the indiginous peoples of that land?
get real please"

LOL.
well, i guess it worked on the british, when they left palestine.

you are talking NONESENSE

 

[outlandish]

The current myth is that these Arabs were long established in Palestine, until the Jews came and "displaced" them. The fact is, that recent Arab immigration into Palestine "displaced" the Jews. That the massive increase in Arab population was very recent is attested by the ruling of the United Nations: That any Arab who had lived in Palestine for two years and then left in 1948 qualifies as a "Palestinian refugees".

Casual use of population statistics for Jews and Arabs in Palestine rarely consider how the proportions came to be. One factor was the British policy of keeping out Jews while bringing in Arabs. Another factor was the violence used to kill or drive out Jews even where they had been long established.

For one example: The Jewish connection with Hebron goes back to Abraham, and there has been an Israelite/Jewish community there since Joshua long before it was King David's first capital. In 1929, Arab rioters with the passive consent of the British -- killed or drove out virtually the entire Jewish community.

For another example: In 1948, Trans-Jordan seized much of Judea and Samaria (which they called The West Bank) and East Jerusalem and the Old City. They killed or drove out every Jew

http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/palestinians/truth.html

what is this slop? You really haven't been reading my posts have you (what is it with you zionist freaks + denial)

ok...again:

The current myth is that these Arabs were long established in Palestine, until the Jews came and "displaced" them.

1)yes sure, 6 million years of anthropolgy and history can only be denied by a true zionist.
yes biiiig myth....arabs living on arab land....

2) you still cannot grasp the fact that for centuries ARAB jews have been living in that land.

3) YOU perceive ARAB as excluding JEW typical zionist fallacy.

4) you have NO knowledge of the JEWS you speak of, you have no ability to distinguish MIZRAHI JEWS (arab jews) SEPHARDIC JEWS OR ASHKENAZI JEWS

read this please for your own sake

By Adam Hanieh

The official ideology of Israel, Zionism, has always portrayed itself as a liberation movement for all Jews. But although Zionism claims to offer a home for all Jews, that home has never been offered equally.



The question of Arab Jews strikes at the heart of the Zionist contradiction -- an attempt to build an anti- Arab, exclusively Jewish state on Arab lands.

From the early days of the Zionist project, large numbers of Jews from neighbouring Arab countries were brought to Palestine. Ostensibly they were “returning home”, but in reality they came as cheap labour for their European counterparts (Ashkenazi Jews).

These Arab Jews were given the name Mizrahim (the eastern ones).


http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Jews-not-for-Judaism/Arab_Jews.htm

read the above link....fill that vacumn of knowledge with facts

until the Jews came and "displaced" them

which jews?
from where did they come from?

ashkenazim jews: that is eastern euro germanic/slav origin jews migrated to palestine

From the early days of the Zionist project, large numbers of Jews from neighbouring Arab countries were brought to Palestine. Ostensibly they were “returning home”, but in reality they came as cheap labour for their European counterparts (Ashkenazi Jews).

FROM THIS LINK AGAIN:

http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Jews-not-for-Judaism/Arab_Jews.htm



is the light slowly seeping through the darkness that is your mind yet???

again from a link TO MY OWN POST which I gave to earlier and one which you obviously haven't bothered to read:

eastern europeans of germanic/turkik/slav origin have no blood lineage connection to the peoples of ancient israel, and VICE VERSA...this is quite un amiguous.
sharing religious/spiritual beliefs with another peoples does not make you the same peoples this is also clear and un ambiguous.

here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=569459#post569459

lastly:

you still have this stupid notion that you eastern european germanic/slavs are connected to the ancient hebrew israelites?



This book traces the history of the ancient Khazar Empire, a major but almost forgotten power in Eastern Europe, which in the Dark Ages became converted to Judaism. Khazaria was finally wiped out by the forces of Genghis Khan, but evidence indicates that the Khazars themselves migrated to Poland and formed the cradle of Western Jewry. . .

The Khazars' sway extended from the Black Sea to the Caspian, from the Caucasus to the Volga, and they were instrumental in stopping the Muslim onslaught against Byzantium, the eastern jaw of the gigantic pincer movement that in the West swept across northern Africa and into Spain.

In the second part of this book, "The Heritage," Mr. Koestler speculates about the ultimate faith of the Khazars and their impact on the racial composition and social heritage of modern Jewry. He produces a large body of meticulously detailed research in support of a theory that sounds all the more convincing for the restraint with which it is advanced. Yet should this theory be confirmed, the term "anti-Semitism" would become void of meaning, since, as Mr. Koestler writes, it is based "on a misapprehension shared by both the killers and their victims. The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins to look like the most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated."

read this:



http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/13trindx.htm

now dont waste anymore of my time with your rubbish.

 

[Undecided]

I don’t want to involved in this thread because I have had enough Isr/Pal to last a lifetime, but to aaa. Just one question, why are Jews in the Levant? Simple question and a simple answer. Thank you, because the conversation should not be whether or not Arabs own the land, but rather why “Jews” are in there in the first place.

 

[outlandish]

look at this simple example of the total denial of facts and history, and a complete re-writing of history to suit the zionist claptrap he has rattling inside his head

the occupation only started in 67', due the arabs to strat another war.
they should have been trying to understand and talk, instead of starting wars.
ISN'T THAT A FACT THAT THE ARABS STARTED THE WARS IN 48', 67'???

ISN'T THAT A FACT THAT THE OCCUPATION STARTED ONLY BECAUSE OF
ARAB AGRESSION AGAINST ISRAEL?

the arab resistance started as a direct result + reaction to the israeli occupation.

X cause reaction Y

hence X has to occour 1st before Y does,

 

[outlandish]

I don’t want to involved in this thread because I have had enough Isr/Pal to last a lifetime, but to aaa. Just one question, why are Jews in the Levant? Simple question and a simple answer. Thank you, because the conversation should not be whether or not Arabs own the land, but rather why “Jews” are in there in the first place.

to this I would like to add another question:

hypothetically, if the levant was in China:

i) could eastern europeans have any legitimate claim to inherent rights to that land over the Chinese?

ii) would it be at all ethical or justified for said eastern europeans to migrate to China and actively dispell the indiginous Chinese people from that land??

aaa, I await answers to both questions.

 

[Undecided]

No instead of China use an example that really happened:

South Africa:

i) Do Europeans still have any legitimate claim to inherent rights to that land over the Blacks? Remember there were no official black states in South Africa prior to the Whites as well.

ii) Would it be at all ethical or justified for said Europeans to migrate to South Africa and actively dispell the indiginous Black people from that land, and segregate them into their own Bantustans??

All questions relate directly to Israel as well, I’ll be waiting.

 

[spidergoat]

Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. Whites who settled in Africa, bought land, cleared it, and farmed it, have some rights to that land. Not exclusive rights to all the land, though, just on an equal basis as blacks. However, if the blacks feel that no whites had any right to own land, and drove them off, then the whites have a right to protect themselves, to the extent of establishing independence or some kind of military law, until equality could be established. This is what Israel is doing now, protecting themselves until they can work out some equitable deal with the Palestinians.

 

[outlandish]

Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder

bullshit. we're not talking some subjective concept such as the perception of beauty here.

legitimacy is absolute, either X = legitimate or it isn't.

Whites who settled in Africa

colonialisation/imperialisation + oppression of indiginous population is NOT "settling". migrating to a county and becoming legal citizens of a country is "settling"

bought land, cleared it, and farmed it, have some rights to that land.

wtf are you talking about???? man read up on your south african history!
you think those europeans went over there and started a picnic?!!

 

[spidergoat]

bullshit. we're not talking some subjective concept such as the perception of beauty here.

legitimacy is absolute, either X = legitimate or it isn't.

I disagree. "Rights" and legitimacy are entirely subjective- legitimate to whom? European settlers felt that rights had to come from an organized state, or not at all. How long do someone's ancestors have to live in a place before the subjective quality of ownership is transferred to them? And how long after you leave do you still retain that ownership? Ownership in the past was more fluid, and came at the point of a spear.

 

[Undecided]

Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. Whites who settled in Africa, bought land, cleared it, and farmed it, have some rights to that land.

They did? Then why did they have to fight the Zulu’s? Do you honestly believe that the settlement of South Africa was a legal, and easy affair?

Not exclusive rights to all the land, though, just on an equal basis as blacks.

Was that what happened? You are talking in theory, I am talking reality. Tell me what happened.

However, if the blacks feel that no whites had any right to own land, and drove them off, then the whites have a right to protect themselves, to the extent of establishing independence or some kind of military law, until equality could be established.

So people who established a colony with a large minority population, subjugating the local population, not paying for most the land and forcing blacks into Bantustans have an inherent right to do what you just prescribed? It seems every civilized state on Earth seemed to disagree with you. This rings true for Israel, Israel basically did the same thing and the only reason why Israel has not suffered the same fate of Apartheid South Africa is because of Big Brother.

This is what Israel is doing now, protecting themselves until they can work out some equitable deal with the Palestinians.

So walling off people from their farms, land, and history is the way to make this “equitable”. Is being equitable forcing millions into ghetto’s yet having settlers have access to most of the land, and resources? Whom are you trying to kid here Spider? Israel has been land grabbing and not paying one red cent for any of it for the past 50 years. If you want equitable give the Pals. at least their 1967 borders, withdraw all settlements, and then reach a compromise solution of Jerusalem, or Al Quds (whatever your preference). Israel is a rogue state, and as such should be in the same position as NK, or South Africa but you are luck due to the influence you hold in the US. Of course my solution as you may well know is the one state solution like South Africa, and reconciliation trails to start the healing process like in South Africa. Let’s face facts here, Israel exists as a refugee camp, not a religious promise (only if your Christian). Israel is built on hate, lies, and distortions, her fate imo is already in the cards. We just have to wait and see how Israel will deal with that fate.

 

[outlandish]

I disagree. "Rights" and legitimacy are entirely subjective- legitimate to whom? European settlers felt that rights had to come from an organized state, or not at all. How long do someone's ancestors have to live in a place before the subjective quality of ownership is transferred to them? And how long after you leave do you still retain that ownership? Ownership in the past was more fluid, and came at the point of a spear.

Rights" and legitimacy are entirely subjective-

yes according to the perceptions of the colonialists/imperialists...it makes them sleep just that little bit easier at night.

i'm talking about legitimate rights based on analysis of the situation on a dialectic/factual level + you come back with subjectiveness.

ok lets take: A: subjectibe view of X versus B: the inherent truth of an argument on a factual,essential + dialectic level

B has more validity over A.

?

European settlers felt that rights had to come from an organized state, or not at all

i dont care with what they may or may not have felt. what they felt has no relevance to anything.

How long do someone's ancestors have to live in a place before the subjective quality of ownership is transferred to them?

ph man! goat whats the matter with you? you completely dismiss anthropology + history of a peoples and their nation and trivialise it to "subjective quality" !!!!

when will you start dealing with objecivity + actuality?!!!!

 

[spidergoat]

What objective measure is there of ownership? Ownership is determined by social institutions. Sometimes they conflict. Who is right? Anthropology and history are subjective by nature. In fact, Outlandish is starting from the subjective premise that those with a family history in a place have a right to own that place, and to decide who can live in proximity. By your account, the United States is illegally occupying the land of the Indians who have a right to murder as many innocent Americans as they want, due to the fact that great grandpa hunted deer in what is now New Jersey. But wait, by now those Americans might have a 200 year history in that place, so is it right to go by the older history? If you go by the older history, then the Arabs are occupiers of Jewish land, since Jewish history in Israel is older. Even within America, you don't have a right to your own land. If you don't pay the tax, you lose it. If the gov. wants to build a highway through "your" property, they can buy it, and you have to sell. So, ownership is objective only within the system that granted it in the first place.

 

[Undecided]

What objective measure is there of ownership?

Land ownership is one, prior to the independence of Israel the vast majority of the land was owned by Arabs as you already know. Prior to the first waves of European Jewry there were about 325,000 Arabs in what is now Palestine in 1825. Prior to the first wave of Jewry into Palestine there was a movement because these people had a separate identity then those of their rulers:

For the people who would become the Palestinians, the seeds of a strong national identity began in the early 1800s with struggles against the ruling Ottomans, who had controlled the territory since the 1500s, and in 1834 against the Egyptians, who for a short time ruled the area. These revolts, and later revolts against other outside powers, unified Arabs from diverse backgrounds — peasants, urban traders, religious leaders — by pitting them against common enemies.

So there was a common front well before any notion of Zionism, or the Balfour declaration.

Ownership is determined by social institutions. Sometimes they conflct.

Ownership is determined by a common cultural, historical, and economic history and future on a parcel of land. That is what nationalism is, to excuse Jews moving into Palestine would be like for Romans to call for Libya back, or Anatolia. If you want to be impartial and objective on situation I have a great deal many empires that need to be reestablished.

Anthropology and history are subjective by nature.

DNA is not subjective, and you should know that. Secondly you being a European Jew is not a semite:

A Semite is a person descended from Shem, Noah's son. The meaning can be expanded to include any people speaking a Semitic language, including Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians, etc. Hence, Arabs as well as Jews who are descended from Middle Eastern roots are Semites. It also means some Jews are not Semites. The term anti-Semitic, however, was used in the late 1800s in Europe to mean hating Jews and has held that meaning since.

As I highlighted you are a Semite only if you are directly ascended from those tribes. No religion does not make you a Semite, if so then I would be a Catholic Semite, and various other groups throughout the world. Even Koreans would be Semitic, but we all know that’s ridiculous as is the assertion that being Jewish automatically makes you Semitic.

If you go by the older history, then the Arabs are occupiers of Jewish land, since Jewish history in Israel is older

And if you go back even further Egyptians and Mesopotamians owned that land, so that is a moot point and you know it.

Even within America, you don't have a right to your own land.

Actually that is one of the tenants of the US’ founding.

If the gov. wants to build a highway through "your" property, they can buy it, and you have to sell.

Firstly maybe in the Soviet Union but not the US, the govt has no right to dictate how your land will be used, only during wars. Secondly this has nothing to do with the conversation I would fathom.

 

[outlandish]

goat whats the matter with you eh??

Ownership is determined by social institutions

we're not talking about ownership , we're not talking about the purchase/sale of goods, you think this is a discussion on the sales of goods act?!!!

we're talking abpout fundamental basic rights to ones land on anthrolopological + historical grounds versus "rights" aquired through active colonialisation can you not grasp basic ideological concepts??

let me refresh you with the initial question:

i) Do Europeans still have any legitimate claim to inherent rights to that land over the Blacks? Remember there were no official black states in South Africa prior to the Whites as well.

ii) Would it be at all ethical or justified for said Europeans to migrate to South Africa and actively dispell the indiginous Black people from that land, and segregate them into their own Bantustans??

Anthropology and history are subjective by nature

ok do you actually know the difference between subjectivity/objectivity?

Main Entry: an·thro·pol·o·gy
Pronunciation: "an(t)-thr&-'pä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin anthropologistogia, from anthrop- + -logia -logy
1 : the science of human beings; especially : the study of human beings in relation to distribution, origin, classification, and relationship of races, physical character, environmental and social relations, and culture
2 : theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings

please don't make this anymore painful for yourself.

By your account, the United States is illegally occupying the land of the Indians

the united states didnt colonise that land man what are you talking about? you cant get your concepts straight. Europeans colonised that land, + yes the native indians had more inherent rights than the migrants.

inherent right doesnt = ability to effectively defend yourself against colonisation, so might is right in the end eh goat?

listen man, do yourself a favour and do some reading:

http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/zinn-chap16.html
http://www.ls.net/~newriver/ny/cherryvalley.htm

 

[spidergoat]

Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. Whites who settled in Africa, bought land, cleared it, and farmed it, have some rights to that land.

They did? Then why did they have to fight the Zulu’s? Do you honestly believe that the settlement of South Africa was a legal, and easy affair?

Why didn't the Zulu's settle the matter diplomatically? Because their rights to the land were granted by military force, the same force that (probably) took the land from some other, weaker tribe in the past. Colonists were simply engaging in the area's dominant system of land negotiation- warfare.

Not exclusive rights to all the land, though, just on an equal basis as blacks.

Was that what happened? You are talking in theory, I am talking reality. Tell me what happened.

In all honesty, I don't know the history of South Africa. Probably, the white settlers were just racists, and felt the black had no rights, being barbarians or whatever, and the blacks felt the whites had no rights, because they were new there. Whatever the tragic history, both parties now have to comprimise, and work out a comfortable truce, because in the end, the only real rights are human rights, not property rights.

So walling off people from their farms, land, and history is the way to make this “equitable”. Is being equitable forcing millions into ghetto’s yet having settlers have access to most of the land, and resources? Whom are you trying to kid here Spider? Israel has been land grabbing and not paying one red cent for any of it for the past 50 years. If you want equitable give the Pals. at least their 1967 borders, withdraw all settlements, and then reach a compromise solution of Jerusalem, or Al Quds (whatever your preference).

You don't seem to recognize the importance of the '48 war. This action took the place of any potential negotiation. Israel and the Palestinians have hardly begun to negotiate an equitable solution, but someday they will. Until then, Israel still has to defend itself. You may call Israel "rogue", but then so is Palestine, due to it's terrorist tactics. There is no objective measure of righteousness here, it depends on who you happen to identify with. Arab resistance began in opposition to the idea of a small Jewish state in the midst of a large Arab empire, it's based on Religious intolerance, not on the property rights of Arabs, some of whom were nomadic.

 

[Undecided]

Why didn't the Zulu's settle the matter diplomatically?

Why didn’t the Whites negotiate to take the land? Why did whites enslave blacks in South Africa etc? Why doesn’t Israel engage in diplomacy with others, like the time which Saudi Arabia opened up the possibility of accepting Israel as a state? Also do you think the Zulu’s had a concept of diplomacy?

Because their rights to the land were granted by military force, the same force that (probably) took the land from some other, weaker tribe in the past.

No because they have lived on that land for thousands of years, much longer then any other people on earth quite frankly. Their rights to their land is because they cultivated, lived, worked, on that land. The geo-political issues pertaining to the Zulu’s were domestic, and were not unlike those of Germany for instance but Prussia brought Germany together and most Germans liked it. The difference is that it’s a fellow African doing this to you, and you have a great appreciation of their power then some total foreigner.

Whatever the tragic history, both parties now have to comprimise, and work out a comfortable truce, because in the end, the only real rights are human rights, not property rights.

So then what is stopping you from agreeing to my position of one state solution which embodies the exact same spirit. Unlike others at least I recognize that Israeli’s are there to stay, and I think that the Levant will be much more peaceful under one state, and for an interim period under International control.

You don't seem to recognize the importance of the '48 war. This action took the place of any potential negotiation. Israel and the Palestinians have hardly begun to negotiate an equitable solution, but someday they will. Until then, Israel still has to defend itself.

The 1948 war is not the issue here imo, the issue was the 1967 war. The Israeli’s got the borders of 1948 through a cease-fire thus are legally binding but the borders of 1967 are completely illegal and completely outside the grasp of Israeli’s rights. Sure Israel has a right to defend itself, on its own land like all other civilized states on Earth.

You may call Israel "rogue", but then so is Palestine, due to it's terrorist tactics.

Hey I’m no fan of Palestine either, I condemn the actions of the terrorists, but here is the critical difference, Palestine is not a state. So I cannot give her that status.

Arab resistance began in opposition to the idea of a small Jewish state in the midst of a large Arab empire

Read my source again, that is a lie.

it's based on Religious intolerance,

Not it’s not, it’s based on intolerance of imperialism. Jews lived in the Levant with their Christian and Muslim brothers for centuries. So no try again.

not on the property rights of Arabs, some of whom were nomadic.

5% to be exact.