Israeli policies are hypocritical

Discussion in 'Middle East' started by Ronstar, Oct 8, 2014.

  1. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Israel was created as a refugee camp for victims of 2,000 years of racism and persecution.

    and yet, from its inception, Israel has committed many of the attrocities that the Jews themselves have suffered.

    exile, loss of rights, ethnic cleansing, Israel is guilty of all these things against non-Jews.

    how did this happen?

    how can a people that suffered soo much, commit so many of the same crimes that they themselves suffered?
     
  2. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    that's an easy question that can be answered in two words:

    NEVER AGAIN.
     
  3. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Pure Bolloney and Slander!!!!!!!!!!
    YOU CANNOT PROVE NONE OF THE ABOVE FOR IT IS NOT TRUE!!!\\


    I notice that you are towing the Arab Propaganda line and their respective credo propagated from father to son..., and you have swallowed it <line hook and sinker>...

    One of the myths connected to the Arab Israeli conflict, is that Israel and the whole of "Mandatory Palestine" before it, was stolen from the Arabs as a result of "Imperialist Machinations," and was settled by Alien Jews. When one reads, contentious statements, i.e. quote: "Israel sits on land of Palestine, inhabited mostly by émigré Jews who had never set a foot in Palestine." Unquote&#8230; the reader is under the impression that such an assertion is correct in every aspect, and, has received blessings and approbation from the enlightened communities of the world. Nothing is further than the truth!&#8230; Jews are not Aliens to their land, Archeology proves that! "Jesus the Jewish prophet" (accepted as such by the Muslim religion), was born there whilst Judea and Israel (two Jewish Kingdoms) were under the yoke of the Roman Empire.

    The Arab speaks Arabic the foreign Language of the Arab Peninsula... [Arab = Arabia] does it ring any bells? The Arab practice the Religion of Mohammed [now called Islam...] that was supposedly instilled in him by an Angel generated in Arabia now called Saudi Arabia on the name of a Dynasty...

    The Jews claim Israel by History and Archeology... something that the Americans cannot elate themselves to their heart content with... on the other hand, the Arabs claiming Palestine have no Archeological artifacts whatsoever&#8230; the only vestige they left is the droppings of their sheep and camels.

    No need to prove blood ties this is a stupid indication and a lame excuse... you would be thrown out of my class like a rocket for uttering such fatuous/illusory nonsense. The Christian cannot claim blood ties either and the Arabs have no record whatsoever&#8230; before Islam&#8230; they were nomads and polytheists.

    Here are some statistics [as help] for these readers who have no concept of History.
    ============================================================
    Israel Rule 1447BC - 587BC = 860 years
    Babylon Conquest 587BC - 540BC = 47 years
    Israel Autonomy
    (Under Persian rule) 540BC - 163BC = 377 years
    Revolt of the Maccabees 163BC - 143BC = 20 years
    Rule of the Hashmoneans 143BC - 37 BC = 106 years
    Jewish Autonomy
    (Under Romans) 37BC - 637CE = 674 years.
    ____
    Total 2084 years
    Less 47 years of Babylon conquest - 47 years
    ____
    TOTAL JEWISH RULE OVER ITS LAND 2037 years
    =========================================

    Rule of the Caliphates 637CE - 1072CE = 435 years
    I had written:- Thus during the whole period of recorded History, Palestine was never ruled by the Arabs of Palestine. The Rule of the various Caliphates (KHILAFAH) which was a Foreign Moslem Rule, extended over a period of 435 years.

    Seljuk Rule(Turkoman) 1072CE - 1099CE = 27 years
    Crusader Rule 1099CE - 1291CE = 192 years
    Mameluk (slaves) 1291CE - 1517CE = 226 years
    Ottoman Turk 1517CE - 1917CE = 400 years
    British Mandate 1918CE - 1948CE = 30 years
     
  4. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    close to half of the Arab refugees from Israel were forced out by the Haganah and Irgun during the 1948 War.

    after the Armistice, around 50,000 more Arabs who lived near Lebanon, Gaza, and Jordan were pushed over the border.

    during the 1967 war, tens of thousands more Arabs were forced into Jordan.

    Israel has passed lots of laws that discriminate against Arabs and favor Jews.

    Israel now allows towns and villages in Israel with 400 families to keep out people that "disrupt the cultural integrity of the community". This is mostly used by Jewish towns and villages to keep out non-Jews.

    many mosques were destroyed in Israel after 1948.

    Israel was confiscated tens of thousands of dunams of Arab private land for "military purposes", and allows Jews to build Palestinian-free settlements.

    Israel has confiscated more Arab land, turned it into "state land", and again used it for "Palestinian-free" settlements.

    these are facts. They are not in dispute.
     
  5. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you can't be serious.

    the Romans ended Jewish rule in Palestine in AD 135.

    Jewish rule over this land is centuries less that Muslim rule.
     
  6. Karma Mechanic

    Karma Mechanic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,054
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No Israel was created as a homeland for an exiled people to come home to.

    While that is not completely the truth it is good story

    whom?

    ,

    Israeli citizens who are Muslim have more rights than anywhere else in the middle east.

    Nope

    A lie

    Mostly because the neighbors of Israel want to kill them all.

    You should read our history better....it doesn't surprise me that we pivoted and became a powerful people.
     
  7. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody else wanted them, before the holocaust and after.




    what a truly stupid an hateful attempt an analogy, completely unworthy of you.
    Facts are that Israeli Arabs live in a full formed parliamentary democracy, they do not have to fear radical Islamist terrorists who kill more muslims than any coalition of nations. They have equal voting rights, equal property rights, access to free education, universal healthcare, the right to practice their religion and respect for their religious institutions, and on and on.

    But its not surprising that anti-Zionists consider the relatively few laws that seek to preserve the jewish nature of the nation and communities and to protect national security interests would be viewed as somehow equally abusive as Nazis, or for that matter muslims.
     
  8. rammstein

    rammstein Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2013
    Messages:
    887
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    18
    .

    Ron --

    This is an excellent question.

    I am going to accept your inquiry as sincere and respond with the same sincerity.

    The answer to your question lies in the book "The Wandering Who ?" by Gilad Atzmon.
    This book cracks this open for you. Ignore the defamation in the MSM about this book
    and read it. Ironically, this book contains needed information for Jews to break out of
    the Pogrom cycle you alluded to in your question.

    all the best to you, ramm

     
  9. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To respond to the mass of irrational, baseless comments...

    a) Israel was not created but rather RECONSTITUTED... this is mentioned in the <Preamble> amd the body the Mandate fopr Palestine articles.

    b) Just to prove another point I researched the work of the Hague Professor Talia Einhorn here it is and well deserving to be read.

    Hague Professor: This Is No "Occupation"

    19:15 May. 29, '03 / 27 Iyar 5763


    Prof. Talia Einhorn writes that the Israeli presence in Yesha (Judea and Samaria) does not constitute "occupation," and moreover, that the U.N. Partition Resolution of 1947 is a "recommendation" and not obligatory.


    Prof. Talia Einhorn, of the T.M.C. Asser Institute, an institute for international law in The Hague,
    writes that the Israeli presence in Yesha (Judea and Samaria) does not constitute "occupation," and moreover, that the U.N. Partition Resolution of 1947 that mentions a "new Arab state" is of the "recommendation" type and not the "mandatory" type.


    "Up until 1948, Judea, Samaria and Gaza were a part of the British Mandate. In the 1948 War of Independence, Egypt illegally grabbed the Gaza Strip, and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, the 'West Bank.' Egypt did not claim sovereignty in Gaza, but Jordan deigned, in 1950, to annex Judea and Samaria. This annexation was not recognized by international law. The Arab nations objected to it, and only Britain and Pakistan recognized it - and Britain did not recognize the annexation of eastern Jerusalem. In 1967, after the Six Day War, these territories - which were originally meant for the Jewish Nation's National Home according to the Mandate Charter - returned to Israeli control." Einhorn adds that in 1988, King Hussein of Jordan rescinded its legal and administrative ties to Judea and Samaria.

    "According to international law," Einhorn writes, "Israel has full right to try to populate the entire Land of Israel with dense Jewish settlement, and thus actualize the principles set by the League of Nations in the original Mandate Charter of San Remo in 1920. At that time, the mandate to the Land of Israel was granted to the British, and the introduction to the mandate charter states clearly that it is based on the international recognition of the historic ties between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel. Clause II of that mandate charges Britain with 'ensuring the existence of political, administrative, and economic conditions that will guarantee the establishment of the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel.'"

    "Even the White Paper of 1922," she continues, "which restricted Jewish immigration to the land, emphasized the Jewish Nation's rights to the national home in the Land of Israel - while at the same time tearing away almost 80% of the mandate's area on the eastern side of the Jordan and giving it to Emir Abdullah."

    Prof. Einhorn says that there is nothing in international law that requires a Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean - not even the UN Partition Resolution of Nov. 29, 1947. That resolution states that "independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem" shall come into existence in Palestine. However, Prof. Einhorn notes the widely-overlooked fact that the introduction to the resolution states specifically that it is merely a "recommendation" and nothing more: "[The General Assembly] recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below."

    The fact that the Arab states did not accept the Partition Plan, explains Prof. Einhorn, voids the recommendation of any legal basis.

    She further writes that Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for negotiations and a "withdrawal from territories" (not "withdrawal from the territories") captured in 1967, are similarly "recommendations." These resolutions were drawn up under the UN Charter's Clause VI, which deals with non-mandatory recommendations - as opposed to Clause VII resolutions, "which are mandatory, and which deal with a threat to world peace, such as those taken earlier this year against Iraq."
     
  10. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no desire to debate the parameters and interpretation of the word "reconstituted" and whether it is accurate in describing Israel.

    Since Israel did not exist for a couple thousand years, and there wasn't nearly enough "parts" of ancient Israel lying around to "reconstituted" itself. Therefore a process of creation was NECESSARY.

    As for you arguments about occupation and territorial sovereignty, we have and will continue to disagree. I think over the years between us, we've :deadhorse:

    cheers.
     
  11. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you might be offended by the facts stated in my comments, but they are in no way "irrational" or "baseless".
     
  12. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, its "never again unless you are Palestinian".
     
  13. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh please there is NO indication that Palestine was just Jewish... and the archeology doesn't support that claim.

    As for Arabic... the semitic languages have evolved... Even written Hebrew is not the same... and in fact Aramaic was the linga franca of Holy lands.. It was the language of commerce... and Greek was widely spoken because of the Decapolis.
     
  14. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    then you truly do not understand what Never Again means.
     
  15. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Palestine has always been a multi-ethnic society.

    Israelites, Phillistines, Phoenecians, Moabites, Egyptians, Canaanites, etc..
     
  16. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was and still am under the impression that your knowledge and fairmindedness will overcome the childish obstacles that you have managed somehow made to yourself as an inpenetrable fact that you alone believe in.

    Here are my facts and please compare them to yours...

    THE BRITISH MANDATE

    It is submitted that the Mandate for Palestine has a primary and overriding purpose and object - namely, the establishment of the Jewish National Home in Palestine. All other duties of the Mandatory must be deemed to be subordinated to this primary object and no provision of the Mandate can properly be interpreted so as to entail any departure or derogation from this primary purpose. This is clear from the wording of the Mandate itself.
    The Preamble explains why the Mandate was created and sets out its purpose. The first clause of the Preamble declares it to be the intention of the Principal Allied Powers that Palestine should be administered under a Mandatory regime. The second clause proceeds to explain that the purpose of the Mandate is to put into effect the Balfour Declaration; accordingly the clause declares that the Mandatory shall be responsible for doing so. None of the remaining clauses of the Preamble make any mention of other purposes or objects. Manifestly, no other was intended. This is evident also from the contents of the third clause of the Preamble.

    The British authorities themselves recognized that their first obligation was to help achieve the establishment of the Jewish National Home. Thus, the Colonial Office wrote to the Palestine Arab delegation in April 1922 that "the declaration, as you are aware, provided, first, for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine; and, secondly, for the preservation of the rights and interests of the non Jewish population of the country."

    This is also evident from the fact that immediately after the first Article conferring upon the Mandatory the necessary powers of legislation and administration to carry out the Mandate, Article 2 begins with a proviso that the Mandatory shall "be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the Preamble..." The effect of the remaining part of Article 2 will be considered later.

    That the primary purpose of the Mandate is the establishment of the Jewish National Home is made further apparent by Articles 4, 6, 7, and 11 of the Mandate. The Peel Commission accepted this conclusion after careful study. It stated that unquestionably ... the primary purpose of the Mandate as expressed in the Preamble and in its Article is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home." (Peel Report, page 39).

    This view has been held by many leading British statesmen, including those who were responsible for the Balfour Declaration and the drafting of the terms of the Mandate or who, as British officials, were in the best position to know how their Government understood the Declaration and the Mandatory obligations.

    Reference has already been made to the fact that former Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, former Foreign Secretary Sir Samuel Hoare and others signed a Memorial urging the British Government to accept a Mandate under the League of Nations for the administration of Palestine "with a view to its being reconstituted the National Home for the Jewish People."

    That it is proper to consider what transpired before the mandate was conferred, what was said
    regarding its purpose at British Cabinet meetings and in negotiations between Britain's
    government and other Allied and Associated Powers, is clear from the following statement of the
    international law on the subject:

    "It is a well-established rule in the practice of international tribunals that so-called
    preparatory work (travaux preparatoires) - i.e. the record of negotiations preceding the conclusion of a treaty, the minutes of the plenary meetings and of committees of the Conference which adopted a convention, the successive drafts of a treaty, and so on - may be resorted to for the purpose of interpreting controversial provisions of a treaty. The Permanent Court of International Justice has frequently affirmed the usefulness of preparatory work ... the Court itself has in fact had resort to preparatory work even when in its view the treaty was clear. The deliberation and publicity accompanying the successive stages of the negotiations and conclusion of treaties are such as to render this kind of evidence of particular value."'

    In appearing on behalf of His Majesty's Government at the Seventh Session of the Permanent
    Mandates Commission, the Accredited British Representative, Mr. Ormsby-Gore (now Lord Harlech) said "it was, after all, the Balfour Declaration which was the reason why the British Government was now administering Palestine."'

    As was previously pointed out, the Duke of Devonshire stated in 1923, when he was Colonial
    Secretary, that "the Balfour Declaration was the basis on which we accepted from the Principal Allied Powers the position of Mandatory Power in Palestine." In Command Paper 1989, published October 4, 1923, the British

    Government made the following statement: "the keynote of British policy in Palestine ... is to be found in the Balfour Declaration ... The policy of the Declaration ... formed an essential part of the conditions on which Great Britain accepted the Mandate for Palestine..." On another occasion, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, then Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, said in the House of Commons on April 30, 1929: "I am certain that every Government will do what they can to facilitate the realization of the Zionist aim, policy and ideals, as governed by the terms of the Mandate in the terms of the Balfour Declaration." Similarly Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, now Lord Swinton, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, said on January 7, 1932: "Successive British Governments have sought zealously and fairly to discharge their responsibility of giving effect to Lord Balfour's famous Declaration ... In this matter, policy is constant, though Governments change."'

    This view of British statesmen was also shared by members of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League. In a report submitted to the Twenty-Seventh Session of the Commission 1935, its rapporteur, Mr. Palacios, stated: "As Rapporteur, I consider that it is not for the Mandates Commission to reconsider the Balfour Declaration which is the very soul of the Mandate."

    Again, at the thirty-sixth Session of the Permanent Mandates Commission in June 1939, one of its members, M. Van Asbeck stated in criticizing the MacDonald White Paper of 1939: "both the Mandate and the Balfour Declaration contained one paramount obligation, namely the foundation of a Jewish National Home, that was the primary purpose of the Mandate as outlined in its Preamble."

    M.van Asbeck went on to say that he disapproved of the way in which the second paragraph
    of the White Paper presented the "three main obligations" and "demurred" to the rather
    subordinate place allotted to the real paramount obligation. The novel feature of the Balfour
    Declaration, he pointed out, was that for the first time it gave an official promise of British
    assistance toward the realization of Zionist aspirations which could be summed up in the phrase
    that "the Jews would cease to be a minority in one part of the world." He added: "it was
    therefore, quite natural that Britain and the Allies should in the first years after the Declaration
    have talked about the future Jewish Commonwealth foreshadowed in the Balfour Declaration.

    There is ample evidence in official statements of His Majesty's Government that ab initio they
    regarded the policy of establishing the Jewish National Home as the central purpose of the
    Mandate. This was their original intention and hence it is far more important to determine what
    was their understanding of the matter at that time than years later when exterior political considerations may
    have prompted them to modify their views."

    Thus, for example, the British Foreign Office wrote to the United States Ambassador in London on December 29,1921:
    "So far as Palestine is concerned, Article 11 of the Mandate expressly provides that the Administration may arrange with the Jewish Agency mentioned in Article 4 to develop any of the natural resources of the country in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. The reason for this is that in order that the policy of establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people should be successfully carried out, it is impracticable to guarantee that equal facilities for developing the natural resources of the country should be granted to persons or bodies who may be actuated by other motives."'

    Similarly, the British Government stated in a note of July 1, 1928, to the Cardinal Secretary of
    State as follows:
    "Cardinal Gasperri also alludes to Article 11 of the draft Mandate in support of his
    contention that the Jews are to be given a privileged and preponderating position as against other nationalities and creeds.
    His Majesty's Government regard the provision by which the Administration may arrange with the Jewish Agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate upon fair and equitable terms any public works, services or utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration, as legitimate recognition of the special situation which arises in Palestine from the charge (of establishing in Palestine a National Home for the Jewish People) which has been laid upon them by the Principal Allied Powers, and also of the fact that the Jewish people, in virtue of that policy, are ready and willing to contribute by their resources and efforts to develop the country for the good of all its inhabitants."

    Bibliography: Palestine Royal Commission Report; Richard Meinerzhagen, Middle-East Diary.
     
  17. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bendor, once again you attempt to minimize a perspective (mine) that is shared by a substantial number of people, in fact, way more than adhere to the specious rationale you employ.


    I do not in anyway dispute the desire to create a new nation state called Israel. I also do not dispute the historical record including commentary and notes and public statements.
    I also do not dispute that the contemporary circumstances and political opinions of the 1920's would produce those commentaries, notes, etc. All of which are rather incidental British machinations of the post war era to end colonialism that resulted in the final partition agreement.

    So it was always intended by the people you quoted above that there would be two states one jewish the other arab. But from where I sit today, I see only one state and belligerent military occupation of territory always intended to be part of an arab state.

    you can't have it both ways. Yes the intent was to establish a homeland for the jews, but it was also to establish a homeland for Palestinians (not Jordan or Egypt or Syria or Lebanon).
     
  18. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the Israelis can violate the promises of the Palestine Mandate, so can the international community.

    what's fair is fair.
     
  19. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes.. of course it was and all those people were there throughout the Old Testament.. .. so Joshua really didn't wipe out the Canaanite tribes.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Of course I understand it...and the constant reminder instills fear in the Jewish people as if there is another holocaust just around the corner.
     
  20. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    since the Canaanites are not mentioned for centuries before Christ, its fair to assume that they were wiped out and/or integrated into the Israelites.

    there is no mention of them in the New Testament or Roman records. so clearly they vanished.
     
  21. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0

    MY RATIONAL IS NOT TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS
    but it is a fact that Arab/Muslims according to their irrational Qur'an cannot stand Jews in their midst.

    Take a look at the Mandate for Mesopotamia (now called Iraq) the Jews are not there any more.
    Look at the French Mandate of the Levant (Syria Lebanon) Jews are not there and the Christian MAJORITY has turned to be a puny MINORITY...
    Look at ISIS thousands of Christians were killed in daylight for all to see, machine gunned, shot in the head and thrown one by one in the river... compared to the Nazi era this becomes just a joke.

    That reminds me of the SS St Louis (a ship full of Jews) that President Roosevelt would not accept to harbor and were all returned to Europe to be massacred by the Nazi and you have the unmitigated gall to believe in the Two State solution?
    You must be living in fantasy land or you never had anyone in your family that was in a European concentration camp.

    Let me reiterate that ONE MILLION JEWS were thrown out of all the Arab countries with their shirt on their backs and you naively wants to back a two state solution??? This is not Canada an Quebec you know... This is death to the Jews!!
     
  22. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    most of those Jews chose to leave, as all of those nations had Jews stay behind.

    now, what about the 350,000 Arabs that were forced to leave Israel in 1948 by the Irgun and Haganah?

    what about the 75,000 more that were forced to leave right after the war?

    what about 250,000 that were forced out of the West Bank and into Jordan in 1967?
     
  23. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Prove it... do not just shoot your mouth with unsubstantiated fantasies from the PLO syllabus.

    Come here with solid evidence for the above numbers. The Haganah and the Irgun returned fire in some cases.
    It was never the intention of Israel to throw 400,000 Arabs out (according to UNRWA records)
    The Arab residents followed the request of the surrounding Arab countries Armies to leave for a short period and then return to take possession of Jewish property...

    Here is an official record :

    A collection of historical quotations relating to the Arab refugees:

    Collected ~by Moshe Kohn

    ON APRIL 23, 1948 Jamal Husseini, acting chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee (AHC), told the UN Security Council: "The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce ... They preferred to abandon their homes, belongings and everything they possessed."

    ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1948, the Beirut Daily Telegraph quoted Emil Ghory, secretary of the AHC, as saying: "The fact that there are those refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously..."

    ON OCTOBER 2, 1948, the London Economist reported, in an eyewitness account of the flight of Haifa's Arabs: "There is little doubt that the most potent of the factors [in the flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit ... And it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

    On February 19, 1949, THE JORDANIAN daily Falastin wrote : "The Arab states... encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies."

    ON JUNE 8, 1951, Habib Issa, secretary-general of the Arab League, wrote in the New York Lebanese daily al-Hoda that in 1948, Azzam Pasha, then League secretary, had "assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade ... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property, and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states."

    ON APRIL 9, 1953, the Jordanian daily al-Urdun quoted a refugee, Yunes Ahmed Assad, formerly of Deir Yassin, as saying: "For the flight and fall of the other villages, it is our leaders who are responsible, because of the dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... they instilled fear and terror into the hearts of the Arabs of Palestine until they fled, leaving their homes and property to the enemy."

    ANOTHER refugee told the Jordanian daily a-Difaa on September 6, 1954: "The Arab governments told us, 'Get out so that we can get in.' So we got out, but they did not get in."

    THE PRIME Minister of Syria in 1948, Khaled al-Azem, in his memoirs, published in 1973, listed what he thought were the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948: " ... the fifth factor was the call by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and leave for the bordering Arab countries ... We brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees by calling on them and pleading with them to leave their land."

    "FOLLOWING a visit to refugees in Gaza, a British diplomat reported the following: 'But while they express no bitterness against the Jews...they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states: 'We know who our enemies are,' they will say, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who, they declare, persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes." -

    IN THE MARCH 1976 issue of Falastin a-Thaura, then the official journal of the Beirut-based PLO, Mahmud Abbas ("Abu Mazen"), PLO spokesman, wrote: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."

    British Foreign Office Document #371/75342/XC/A/4991 [From "Revising or Devising Israel's History" by Prof. Shlomo Slonim in Jewish Action, Summer 5760/2000, Vol. 60 #4]

    This page was produced by Joseph E. Katz
    Middle Eastern Political and Religious History Analyst
    Brooklyn, New York
     
  24. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's try not to distort Islam too much. Jews after all are people of the book.

    "Jews in their midst" - I wonder what events could possibly compel some arabs to exile their jewish populations after 1400 years or so of more or less peaceful co-existence?

    when were they expelled?

    when were they expelled? Of course Christians in Lebanon do comprise 45% of the population. there was never a majority of Christians in Syria.

    Are you seriously equating ISIS murderous scumbag apostates to the muslim world?


    Rejection of a ship load of refugees prior to ww2, does not have ANYTHING to do with a two state solution. Claiming otherwise is not only unmitigated gall, its fallacious.

    Bendor, you know my fathers family were German Jews. His immediate family got out in 38, the rest were all transported and murdered. Don't you dare go trolling for cheap "points" about that again.

    IIRC it was closer to 800,000. How many Palestinian refugees resulted from Al Naqba and how many were allowed to return to what became Israel proper? While I do not believe that two wrongs make a right, perhaps you can refresh my memory as to chronological relationship between Al Naqba and expulsion of the jews from arab lands?

    I did not claim that there is a segment of the arab and muslim world that wishes for death to jews, not to mention apostates, other infidels, and perpetrators of a seriously long list of capital crimes.

    Only an idiot or jew hater would suggest that the relationship between jews and muslims, Palestinian and Israeli, is sweetness and light. Naturally you don't think its the jews fault and you can bet the kibbutz that arabs don't think its theirs. I believe both must share the burden and both must come to grips with a solution.
     
  25. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When you belong to a civilized part of the world, you put your fears aside, there is no Quebecois to harm your family and visa versa.
    Muslim in general go with the dictate of their so called Holy Qur'an and repeat <ITBAH AL YAHOUD> means <slaughter the Jews> and they have tried so many times... Arab workers let in to make a living succumb to the temptation and try to kill Jews for the recompense of Muslim Paradise.
    Not so long ago an Arab worker took hold of a forklift and toppled a bus full of people... I have no reason to trust them... Make a place for them in Northern Canada and I hope all freeze to death. Now I am talking from anger.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcbqSUMnZ8A

    and another one

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTsWSpGOWOg
     

Share This Page