12 million Jews in the world

[Natan]

It was stolen from them in the first place.

Perhaps the water originates in the West Bank, but Israel isn't "stealing" their electricity; I don't think that's even technically feasible. As for the water, the PA agreed at Oslo to allow Israel to pump the same amount of water at the same quality as before. It was in section 30 of part B of Article two of Annex II. http://almashriq.hiof.no/general/300...ericho_02.html

Kick someone off their land, then you're to blame for their "refugee" status.

If someone flees because of their allies' propaganda, it doesn't mean that you made them a refugee.

Yeah, how dare them try to runaway from the threat posed by Jews.

"The threat posed by the Jews?" Arab-Israelis had and continue to have far more rights (that is, the full rights of Israeli citizens) than Palestinians in the West Bank had under Jordanian or PLO administration.

That doesn't justify taking lands fron non-combatants.

If people flee and won't come back until they've destroyed your country, I don't think you're obligated to hold their lands for them in case that happens while millions of refugees pour into your country. Besides, no one advocates giving refugees from other conflicts of the time (Germans who fled Prussia, Hindus who fled Pakistan and Muslims who fled India, etc.) a right to take back their grandparents houses from the people owning them now.

Arabs and Jews lived on that land prior to 1948 without the violence we now see.

Yes, in that Jewish resistance was less effective. But the fighting was still there; see the Hebron massacre of 1929 and the Arab revolt of 36-39.

And the Arabs didn't declare war because they didn't want Jews living there, they declared war because the British and the Jews stole the land from Arabs.

You mean that the UN declared a resolution granting land to a Jewish state? Well, the Arabs stated their goal quite succinctly when secretary of the Arab leage, Azzam Pasha, told the UN that "this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacres which will be remembered like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades."

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Berzerker

It was stolen from them in the first place.

It was never theirs.

When did the arabs ever built an electro station or developed a system that brought water to the whole country?

Kick someone off their land, then you're to blame for their "refugee" status.

We didn't "kick them off their land".
It was their land as much as "our" since a good portion of them immigrated to palestine shortly after the jews since jews brought economic growth.

Do you have documentation that "wild monkeys" procreate at faster rates than Jews? If someone used an analogy comparing Jews to monkeys, they'd be called "anti-semitic"; since these Arabs are also semitic, does that mean you are anti-semitic?

It is known that the only thing procreating faster than a wild monkey is a rabbit.

In any case, the 800,000 or so original palestinians living here in 1947, became 6,000,000 (1M Israeli citizens, almost 5M refugees)

While of the jews living here (around 250,000-500,000 can't remember) only around 1.5-2 M are a result of procreation. Another 1 M is russian immigration. Another 1 M is eastern jews emigration during 50s, 60s, and totaling in 4,000,000 jews.

Yeah, how dare them try to runaway from the threat posed by Jews.

How dare Jews defend themselves against arabs who wanted to slaughter them and drive them to the sea!!!!

Please refer to the rest of my writing and take it seriously.

You ignore the fact that since 1929 it were the arabs who started and continued the hostilities towards jews, not the other way.

And the jews had no intention of "throwing arabs out". They bought lands and then paid arabs to work there. Arabs knew the terrain better and were good workers, while jews were unaccostumed to physical labour, since they weren't allowed to have any land in europe.

That doesn't justify taking lands fron non-combatants.

The taking of land isn't as simple as you think.

First there are evidence that there was an order to flee the country by Arab join command, so that they won't get hurt while the armie would massacare the jews. A chief commander of the arab armies said "we're going to perform the largest massacares since ghenghis khan".

Further more, having declared war on us, the arabs were potencially dangerous, as generally each arab in Israel had relatives in the forces attacking Israel, since that's where they emigrated from.

During the entire mandat, jews were not allowed to own weapons and had to obtain small amounts through illegal manners.

No such restriction existed on the arabs, and they used the weapons to terrorize jewish popoulation across the mandate.

Israeli soldiers who secured villages, were met with gun fire rather than sheep - > people were infact combatants.

Arabs and Jews lived on that land prior to 1948 without the violence we now see.

False.

Read about the arab riots against the brittish and about their massacares of jews and destruction of jewish property starting from 1929.

And the Arabs didn't declare war because they didn't want Jews living there, they declared war because the British and the Jews stole the land from Arabs.

False.

Up to the point of the war, there were no Jewish operations to force arabs out. And when they were later, 150,000 arabs left in Israel and were done no harm. They now consist 1,000,000 people.

True, many arabs left the lands before the war, exactly because they expected a military operation from the arab side to start.


Compare declarations of intent:

Ben Gurion, day of declaration "We call on our neighbours not to start a conflict but rather discuss borders and matters of cooperation" (roughly)

Arab General (Natan has his name), beginning of war "We shall commit massacares greater than ghenghis khan". (roughly)


It's early morning and I'm too tired to search for the exact quotes.

[Gareth Edmunson]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

But still a jew. at least for as long as his jewish ethnicity doesn't disperse after several generations of marrying non-jews.

Maybe it is technically, but lets be reasonable and call the ethnicity Hebrew and save "Jew" or "Jewish" to describe adherents to the religion, and "Israeli" describes a citizen of the state of Israel.

The arabs have many kids, and the only way to keep Israel jewish is promoting jewish emigration. We don't kill people who aren't jewish.

This mentality is exactly the problem. Who cares if Israel over night became 99% Arab? No one should. This is like Pat Buchanan (a redneck hick who ran for US president a while back) saying that the US needs stiffer immigration policy because it was "losing [its] European heritage". Its prejudice, backwards and just wrong.

If Israel wants to "stay Jewish", then Jews should start having more kids for christs sake. Don't make other people suffer for it, and by making special laws and priveleges for Jews, non Jews are suffering, make no mistake about that. In the US, people with this kind of "cultural protectionist" (as in members of the KKK and the World Church of the Creator (both white supremicist groups)) attitude are usually shot or laughed at. But when Israel does it, its fine. Jesus christ.

Why should there be a jewish state? For the same reasons there is a russian, german and french one.

You just have absolutely no clue how the world works, do you? I don't mean that as an insult, I blame Israeli propaganda for making you think the way your state works is normal.

France, the UK and Spain are states that happen to be mostly French, Spanish and British, but they're not a "French State" or a "British State". It just so happens that most British people live in Britain, the UK Government doesn't go airlifting English people in the US back to the UK to "preserve" its "Culture", nor does France ship Quebecers back to France. You see how ridiculous Israel is?

And I'm not even getting into the attrocities Israel has commited kicking Arabs off their land, I'm just talking about Israeli law as it is today.

Israel is the Nazi Germany of the 21st century.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Gareth Edmunson
Maybe it is technically, but lets be reasonable and call the ethnicity Hebrew and save "Jew" or "Jewish" to describe adherents to the religion, and "Israeli" describes a citizen of the state of Israel.

Well you could devide it like this but you'd be the only one.

Jews are an ethnicity that has a uniting religion.

Now that some of the ethnical traits are lost due to thousands of years of diaspora, it's harder to ethnically define a jew.

Orthodox Religious factors say that a jew is a person whose mother is jewish, and refuse to migle with convertees, even if they were jews but not orthodox or not relgious.

I disagree and think that the father has as much to do with being jewish.

The tricky part about the religion I am aware of and I think aobut it alot. When I will come to a solution I'll let you know.

This mentality is exactly the problem. Who cares if Israel over night became 99% Arab? No one should. This is like Pat Buchanan (a redneck hick who ran for US president a while back) saying that the US needs stiffer immigration policy because it was "losing [its] European heritage". Its prejudice, backwards and just wrong.

But you're talking from an american point of view and america is a state without ethnicity!

Meanwhile, all european countries are toughening their immigration policies because they want to preserve their ethnicity and culture.

If Israel wants to "stay Jewish", then Jews should start having more kids for christs sake. Don't make other people suffer for it, and by making special laws and priveleges for Jews, non Jews are suffering, make no mistake about that.

The state of Israel is there to serve two groups:

1) Israelis (of any origin ethnicty and religion)
2) Jews (of any area in the world who can prove their ethnicity and religion)

True, that fact that we don't serve nonjews around the world is against equality. However this was invented due to oragmatical reasons.

I believe this is 200% more moral than immigration laws which take money into consideration.

America is infact letting down all the non-rich. And it's paradoxical, since the non-rich are those who really need a chance, while the rich are already fine in their own country.

In the US, people with this kind of "cultural protectionist" (as in members of the KKK and the World Church of the Creator (both white supremicist groups)) attitude are usually shot or laughed at. But when Israel does it, its fine. Jesus christ.

No one suggests hurting non-jews anywhere.

We only suggest refuge for world jewry, since they really need it.

Nazi groups are getting stronger in Russia, Germany and especially France. In Austria a party with a person known to have said racist remarks against jews is in the government.

True, there are people in the Knesset who dislike the arabs, but not for ethnical or religious reasons but rather because of political ones. It's a political conflict, and Arafat is doing his best to make it a religious one so that Israel wouldn't win.

You just have absolutely no clue how the world works, do you? I don't mean that as an insult, I blame Israeli propaganda for making you think the way your state works is normal.

It's you who have no clue how the world works.

As I said, european coutnries make stricter immigration alws and do give prefernce to people from former colonies, or from that ethnicity.

France, the UK and Spain are states that happen to be mostly French, Spanish and British, but they're not a "French State" or a "British State". It just so happens that most British people live in Britain, the UK Government doesn't go airlifting English people in the US back to the UK to "preserve" its "Culture", nor does France ship Quebecers back to France. You see how ridiculous Israel is?

But had Quebeck ever needed help, I'm sure France would be of the first to support.

The world is devided into groups, according to relgion and ethnicity and nationality. You may not like it and think it's wrong, but until the rest think the same way, that's how it is.

I'm not say this is an ideal state, but as long as there are people who dislike those of diffferent nationality or ethnicity or religion, Israel must have this law to protect jews.

Israel was founded to provide help for Jews, since they needed it.

If everyone's grandfather haven't made a fuss about ethnicity and religion, there wouldn't need to be a jewish state.

And I'm not even getting into the attrocities Israel has commited kicking Arabs off their land, I'm just talking about Israeli law as it is today.

You're not getting into it since you don't know any such atrocities but have only a slight idea from arab propoganda on CNN.

There were several small scale atrocities by individuals or small groups but many were trialed.

You again appear to be ignorant about the history of the palce so I suggest you do read about arab massacares of jews in 1929, and throughout the century.

I suggest you read about how terrorists infiltrated towns and kibutzes and killed children in schools or people in their sleep.

Israel is the Nazi Germany of the 21st century.

I would love it if Nazi Germany was as bad as we are.
Giving Jews the option not to serve in the army, not forcing them to pay taxes.
Having a Jewish minority of 150,000 grow into 1 Million in 50 years.

You appear to be ignorant about what Germany really did so I suggest you go and read, because if you say this to a person who knows a thing or two about the Holocaust you'll be kicked in the face.

How can you even compare the slaughter of helpless 6,000,000 people to a political conflict?
Do you understand that almost all the arab casualties were combatants, who were the agressors against Israel?
Do you understand that several times more arabs died in wars between arab states, than in wars with Israel?

[Berzerker]

Natan and Sirotnikov - Since our debates cover much of the same ground, I will respond to both of you followed by responses to Sirotnikov on any points he made beyond Natan's.

Perhaps the water originates in the West Bank, but Israel isn't "stealing" their electricity; I don't think that's even technically feasible. As for the water, the PA agreed at Oslo to allow Israel to pump the same amount of water at the same quality as before.

I wasn't talking about the current situation, but the situation that would exist had the Brits and Jews not taken the land in the first place. The people living in that area would be producing water and electricty if they were left in possession of their lands.

If someone flees because of their allies' propaganda, it doesn't mean that you made them a refugee.

Palestinians left their land because their allies lied to them? I thought it was because they were expelled back in the 1940's by the Brits and Jews.

"The threat posed by the Jews?"

Yes, give up the land or be killed.

Arab-Israelis had and continue to have far more rights (that is, the full rights of Israeli citizens) than Palestinians in the West Bank had under Jordanian or PLO administration.

Claiming they have more rights than some other tyrant would have given them is an invalid argument.

If people flee and won't come back until they've destroyed your country, I don't think you're obligated to hold their lands for them in case that happens while millions of refugees pour into your country.

Hmm...apparently you missed my reference to "non-combatants". I'm referring to the people who had their property taken by Israel because other Arabs waged a war against them. The fact Europeans fled their land when the Nazis and Russians took turns rolling across the countryside doesn't mean the Nazis and Russians became the legitimate owners of that land.

Besides, no one advocates giving refugees from other conflicts of the time (Germans who fled Prussia, Hindus who fled Pakistan and Muslims who fled India, etc.) a right to take back their grandparents houses from the people owning them now.

I would, but it won't happen either. That doesn't justify the theft...

Yes, in that Jewish resistance was less effective. But the fighting was still there; see the Hebron massacre of 1929 and the Arab revolt of 36-39.

You know more about the recent history of that land than I, but the violence against the legitimate owners of land be they Jew or Arab wasn't anymore justified then than the violence used to take the land of Arabs in the 40's.

You mean that the UN declared a resolution granting land to a Jewish state?

The UN doesn't have the moral authority to "grant" me your land.

Well, the Arabs stated their goal quite succinctly when secretary of the Arab leage, Azzam Pasha, told the UN that "this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacres which will be remembered like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades."

One man or one "league" does not speak for Arabs anymore than I speak for all Americans. But apparently you are quoting an Arab after the land was stolen, a rather important distinction given what I said. I said the wars after the theft of land were caused by the theft, otherwise the Arabs that began the wars would have waged them before the theft.

Sirotnikov -

It was never theirs.

Just who do you think was living on that land prior to 1948?

When did the arabs ever built an electro station or developed a system that brought water to the whole country?

They would have if their land was still in their possession, maybe not to the "whole country", but to where they were. That's what a free people do when they need water and electricity.

We didn't "kick them off their land".

Oh really? They just invited you'll into their homes and walked away?

It was their land as much as "our" since a good portion of them immigrated to palestine shortly after the jews since jews brought economic growth.

You're ignoring the people who were already there - the people who were kicked off their land to create Israel.

It is known that the only thing procreating faster than a wild monkey is a rabbit.

Hehe, well if it's "known", I guess I'll have to accept that as documentation.

In any case, the 800,000 or so original palestinians living here in 1947, became 6,000,000 (1M Israeli citizens, almost 5M refugees)

But you just said many immigrated there because of the economic growth produced by the Jews, so how is this evidence they re-produce like wild monkeys?

How dare Jews defend themselves against arabs who wanted to slaughter them and drive them to the sea!!!!

Homeowners have the moral authority to repel those who would steal their homes. Those who would steal the homes lack that moral authority.

Please refer to the rest of my writing and take it seriously.

Maybe I can if there are no more "wild monkey" analogies

You ignore the fact that since 1929 it were the arabs who started and continued the hostilities towards jews, not the other way.

Excuse me, but you guys keep using generalizations to "justify" the theft of lands taken from the innocent! "The Arabs" did not start hostilities, it may be true that SOME Arabs "started" hostilities if we ignore the theft of Arab land by Jews as actually starting the hostilities.

And the jews had no intention of "throwing arabs out". They bought lands and then paid arabs to work there.

That would be a valid exchange if it was true. But don't tell me every or even most Arab landowner(s) voluntarily sold Jews their lands.

First there are evidence that there was an order to flee the country by Arab join command, so that they won't get hurt while the armie would massacare the jews. A chief commander of the arab armies said "we're going to perform the largest massacares since ghenghis khan".

So if two people pick a fight on your land and you flee for safety, the winner of the fight now gets your land?

Further more, having declared war on us, the arabs were potencially dangerous, as generally each arab in Israel had relatives in the forces attacking Israel, since that's where they emigrated from.

So what? And no, "generally" each Arab did not have relatives in the armies attacking Israel. Some probably did, and some obviously did not.

No such restriction existed on the arabs, and they used the weapons to terrorize jewish popoulation across the mandate.

Maybe some did, but some did not.

Israeli soldiers who secured villages, were met with gun fire rather than sheep - > people were infact combatants.

Geez, do you guys understand that landowners have the moral authority to defend themselves and their land from those who are trying to steal it? When I referred to non-combatants, I was talking about Arab land/home owners who were not part of foreign Arab armies attacking Israel. And not every Arab homeowner waited around for Israeli soldiers to show up, they left fearing for their lives. But these "secured" villages, did they become part of "Israel" or were they returned to the rightful owners once the war was over?

False.

Up to the point of the war, there were no Jewish operations to force arabs out. And when they were later, 150,000 arabs left in Israel and were done no harm. They now consist 1,000,000 people.

Can you respond to what I said? I have no idea what this has to do with my comment. I said the Arab nations that attacked Israel did so because Israel was carved out from what were lands occupied by a variety of peoples including Arabs.

Ben Gurion, day of declaration "We call on our neighbours not to start a conflict but rather discuss borders and matters of cooperation" (roughly)

Yeah, I've stolen your home, let us now talk about how I get to keep it.

[Eli]

I see no point in arguing about the Right of Return.
These people are war refugees, no matter if they left because they were afraid of the Jews or because the Arab Generals told them to do so, and it's the time for Israel to admit it, and to pay compensations.

But every Israeli should also remember that in this case the goal justified the means. And if kicking out 600,000 people is the thing necessary for a state with a Jewish majority and maximum width of more than 20 km, then we had to do it.

As for the return of the refugees. We will not be able to return to Jericho, Hebron and Nablus, and they will not return to Haifa and Akko. But if they continue with this hatred against us and with the brainwashing of thier children, they will eventually be kicked out of the West Bank too.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Gareth Edmunson


Maybe it is technically, but lets be reasonable and call the ethnicity Hebrew and save "Jew" or "Jewish" to describe adherents to the religion, and "Israeli" describes a citizen of the state of Israel.

This is a useless and inaccurate distinction which you invented five minutes ago.

If Israel wants to "stay Jewish", then Jews should start having more kids for christs sake. Don't make other people suffer for it, and by making special laws and priveleges for Jews, non Jews are suffering, make no mistake about that. In the US, people with this kind of "cultural protectionist" (as in members of the KKK and the World Church of the Creator (both white supremicist groups)) attitude are usually shot or laughed at. But when Israel does it, its fine. Jesus christ.

That's because America was founded on different principles than other nations of the world.

You just have absolutely no clue how the world works, do you? I don't mean that as an insult, I blame Israeli propaganda for making you think the way your state works is normal.

Actually, you're the one who has no clue how the world works, but because you are ignorant, have limited experiences, and then are too arrogant to see anyone else's perspective. There are many nations which have laws designed to alter or maintain the countries ethnic makeup or the relative power of the countries' ethnic groups. A short and by no means complete list:
Bosnia
Lebanon
Hungary
Russia
Germany
Kuwait and other gulf states
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Kazakhstan
etc.

Israel is the Nazi Germany of the 21st century.

A comment as slanderous as it is obscene.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Berzerker

I wasn't talking about the current situation, but the situation that would exist had the Brits and Jews not taken the land in the first place.

How did the Brits "take the land?" This is something you're going to have to sort out, what do you mean by "take the land" and when did it start? Jews were buying up land at market prices throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, but I don't think that can be called stealing in any known sense of the term in the English language. Later, the Israeli government, after the 1948 war, began confiscated Arab property either because its owners were absent and unlikely to return, or for a variety of other reasons. But the Arab war of genocide and extermination cannot be viewed as defense against later Israeli land confiscation anymore than the German war of genocide and agression can be viewed as defense against later Polish and Czech expulsions of Germans and seizure of their property.

The people living in that area would be producing water and electricty if they were left in possession of their lands.

So Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Russia are stealing German water and electricity? Are the Kurds stealing Iraqi oil? Not every border change is a theft.

Palestinians left their land because their allies lied to them? I thought it was because they were expelled back in the 1940's by the Brits and Jews.

Again, the expulsions can't be said to start before the 1948 war. During that war, many Arabs left for a variety of reasons. First, rich people started leaving because they were afraid of the general destruction of war. Later, they were kicked out either by Israelis afraid of hostile guerillas in their rear or Arab armies implementing a scorched earth policy. An example of the former would be the expulsion from Ramle and Lod, an example of the former, the expulsion from Haifa and Jaffa.

Yes, give up the land or be killed.

Who was killed for refusing to give up their land?

Claiming they have more rights than some other tyrant would have given them is an invalid argument.

They have more rights then there supposed sole and legitimate representative, the one to whom it seems you would like to turn the land over to, that is, Yasser Arafat and the PLO.

Hmm...apparently you missed my reference to "non-combatants". I'm referring to the people who had their property taken by Israel because other Arabs waged a war against them. The fact Europeans fled their land when the Nazis and Russians took turns rolling across the countryside doesn't mean the Nazis and Russians became the legitimate owners of that land.

I disagree. There's a statue of limitations on these things; you can't demand back someone else's house just because your grandfather lived there two generations and many wars ago. If you disagree, I hope you'll be turning your house over the nearest Native American tribe.

You know more about the recent history of that land than I, but the violence against the legitimate owners of land be they Jew or Arab wasn't anymore justified then than the violence used to take the land of Arabs in the 40's.

But you're ignoring that the primary purpose of the 1948 war was, on the Arab side, to exterminate the Jews, and on the Jewish side, to defend their property and lives from the Arab armies.

The UN doesn't have the moral authority to "grant" me your land.

Good, so you also oppose resolution 242.

One man or one "league" does not speak for Arabs anymore than I speak for all Americans.

He speaks for the Arab governments just as much as G.W. Bush speaks for America and Mullah Omar speaks for the Taliban.

But apparently you are quoting an Arab after the land was stolen, a rather important distinction given what I said.

He spoke on the eve of the '48 war, and besides, genocide is not under any circumstances a form of self defense.

I said the wars after the theft of land were caused by the theft, otherwise the Arabs that began the wars would have waged them before the theft.

1) False, because "the theft of the land" cannot in any reasonable sense of the term be said to have begun before the war, and the Arabs declared their intention to exterminate the Jews before any land had been seized.
2) The Arabs were driving Jews off of their property throughout the war and before it.

Just who do you think was living on that land prior to 1948?

Both Jews and Arabs.

Oh really? They just invited you'll into their homes and walked away?

Well, sometimes they sold the land, other times the Arab armies kicked them out.

You're ignoring the people who were already there - the people who were kicked off their land to create Israel.

You're ignoring the people who were already there - the people (Jewish people) who were kicked off their land to create the West Bank and Gaza.

But you just said many immigrated there because of the economic growth produced by the Jews, so how is this evidence they re-produce like wild monkeys?

The monkeys comment was inappropriate, but what Siro is saying is that before 1948, much of the growth of the Palestinian Arab population was through immigration, and afterwords through a high birthrate. Obviously no one tries to sneak in to a refugee camp to get the yummy UNRWA food.

Homeowners have the moral authority to repel those who would steal their homes. Those who would steal the homes lack that moral authority.

So you agree that the Jews were right to defend themselves from the Arab states? I can't think of a single instance where Palestinian Arabs organized to defend their villages as opposed to raiding Jewish ones. They didn't have an organized army, they weren't an independent country.

Excuse me, but you guys keep using generalizations to "justify" the theft of lands taken from the innocent!

So do you.

"The Arabs" did not start hostilities, it may be true that SOME Arabs "started" hostilities if we ignore the theft of Arab land by Jews as actually starting the hostilities.

Again, the "theft of the land" cannpot be said to begin until After the Arab states launched their war of genocide.

That would be a valid exchange if it was true. But don't tell me every or even most Arab landowner(s) voluntarily sold Jews their lands.

Before 1948, that's the only way land transferred from Arabs to Jews. Jews would raise a lot of money to buy land there for ideological reasons and also because of the desperate need of Russian and German Jews for a place of refuge, and the land's value to them was greater than its value to Arab farmers.

So if two people pick a fight on your land and you flee for safety, the winner of the fight now gets your land?

If you can't come back, I don't think the government is obligated to hold then land until your government lets you take it while millions of refugees flood the area. The Arab states could easily have settled the Palestinians in their own countries, for example, in the homes of the Jews they kicked out, but they chose not to.

So what? And no, "generally" each Arab did not have relatives in the armies attacking Israel. Some probably did, and some obviously did not.

And if more did than did not, then generally Arabs did.

Geez, do you guys understand that landowners have the moral authority to defend themselves and their land from those who are trying to steal it?

And the Jews had a right to station troops in these villages to prevent them from bein used to gun down Jews on the roads, as they were in fact being used.

When I referred to non-combatants, I was talking about Arab land/home owners who were not part of foreign Arab armies attacking Israel. And not every Arab homeowner waited around for Israeli soldiers to show up, they left fearing for their lives.

Yes, but if they were fearing as a result of Arab propaganda, I think the Arabs who made the broadcasts have to bear responsibility for their refugee status.

But these "secured" villages, did they become part of "Israel" or were they returned to the rightful owners once the war was over?

Their rightful owners who stayed are usually still there, those who fled have been unable to return to this day and the land is now lived on by others. All of it is part of Israel, but that has nothing to do with whether it is owned by Arabs or Jews.

Can you respond to what I said? I have no idea what this has to do with my comment. I said the Arab nations that attacked Israel did so because Israel was carved out from what were lands occupied by a variety of peoples including Arabs.

So the objection turns out not to be to the loss of individual property but the idea of Israel itself as an affront to Arab pride. Good, you're getting closer to the truth. But by this logic, the German invasion of Poland in 1939 was completely justified.

Yeah, I've stolen your home, let us now talk about how I get to keep it.

1) Again, any land confiscations began after the 48 war.
2) Ben-Gurion did not set any pre-conditions for talks
3) "You took my house, now I'm gonna kill you and your relatives and anyone else who happens to be nearby you" is even worse.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I wasn't talking about the current situation, but the situation that would exist had the Brits and Jews not taken the land in the first place. The people living in that area would be producing water and electricty if they were left in possession of their lands.

"Take the land?"
Read some history:

The Ottoman empire was a cruel dictatorship that held the territories, abusing jews and arabs.
Following persecutions, european jews slowly began to immigrate into the coastal parts of Israel. They were met with harsh enviroment and terrain. The areas were uninhabited swamps. After drying up the swamps and starting to grow agricultural products jews began buying land from turks and arab landlords. Arabs living there were reimbursed, but mostly allowed to stay there since the jews were in experienced in physical work.

Around the same time, following the first jewish waves, more arabs began to come from other areas of the Ottoman empire and settle in Palestine to work in jewish plantations.

Secretly, Arab and Jewish intellectuals and leaders reached and agreement to jointly fight for thier independance, assuring an arab and a jewish state.

When WWI broke out, jews tried to officially remain neutral. However jewish underground groups worked with the brittish and reported Ottoman information.

The Ottomans forced people to serve in the army and following that jews openly resisted, creating 2 brigades, one of donkey drivers iirc, and one of bombardiers or something, that fought with the Brittsh. A jewish scientist invented a new way to make explosives which aided the brittish a great deal.

When the brittish came to power, having promised both the arab leaders and the jewish leaders to control the same peaces of land, jews and arabs cried for attention by the brittish.

Finally, in Ramadan (iirc) 1929, arab leaders together with muslim priests told the masses to oppose the jews and kill them because they plan to desecrate the arab holy sites.

Meanwhile, the muslim priests changed the popular opinion of where Muhammed's donkey was tied, and from some place near the wailing wall, moved it to the wailing wall itself, or one of the other walls around al-aksa iirc.

After the riots and massacares of 29, and throughout the 30s and 40s, the english published "White Books" limiting and finally prohibiting jewish emigration to palestine.

Jews were also barred from carrying arms, even though no such restriction existed towards the arabs, which used it.

Palestinians left their land because their allies lied to them? I thought it was because they were expelled back in the 1940's by the Brits and Jews.

Erm, read your in depth history books instead of counting on "CNN 60 seconds about..."

Brits had nothing with expelling arabs. Infact they favoured them by limiting jewish emigration and weapons while not doing the same for arabs.

Yes, give up the land or be killed.

150,000 Arabs did not give up the land.

Not only were they not killed, they are today 1,000,000 people. 20% of the Israeli public.

Claiming they have more rights than some other tyrant would have given them is an invalid argument.

No it's not, you're just trying to ignore it.

You say we are responsible for their misery.

When we show you that infact they live much better in Israel than under the PLO you claim it's invalid. Can't handle the truth?

Hmm...apparently you missed my reference to "non-combatants". I'm referring to the people who had their property taken by Israel because other Arabs waged a war against them.

Other arabs?
There are no "other" arabs.
And there was no palestinian nationality until it was invented after 67.

Those arabs are and were all relatives and friends and allies. And they were not barred from carrying and owning weapons.

Didn't America, in the 50s and 60s persecuted possible agents of communism?
Didn't America in the 40s jailed Japanese immigrators?
Isn't America now treating with suspicion muslim or arab immigrants?

Most of the arabs, like most of the jews in 1948 Israel were immigrants that came between 1880 and 1948.

The fact Europeans fled their land when the Nazis and Russians took turns rolling across the countryside doesn't mean the Nazis and Russians became the legitimate owners of that land.

The fact that Nazis declared war and claimed Greater Germany (Poland, Austria, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia) was their natural land, doesn't make it their natural land.

Jews settled in swamps, made them into fertile territory and then arabs, who immigrated at the same time, decide that it's "all theirs".

I would, but it won't happen either. That doesn't justify the theft...

Well if you admit it won't happen, what's the point?

And had they not declared war nothing like this would have happenned.

Israel decided to grab territory to defend itself and it's right because it serves Israeli security. Had arabs really wanted to co-exist the war wouldn't start.

You know more about the recent history of that land than I, but the violence against the legitimate owners of land be they Jew or Arab wasn't anymore justified then than the violence used to take the land of Arabs in the 40's.

Arab violence up to 1948 - Against jews who immigrated there just like they did.
Israeli deportatoins (limited) in 48 - Against arabs who posed a military threat.
Most of the arabs fled before the war expecting it.

The UN doesn't have the moral authority to "grant" me your land.

It wasn't their land. They had rights for the land just like the jews. Less infact, since jews mostly paid for the lands they lived in, while arabs just came and settled.

One man or one "league" does not speak for Arabs anymore than I speak for all Americans. But apparently you are quoting an Arab after the land was stolen, a rather important distinction given what I said.

False.
This was said before any land was stolen and before Israeli armies got into action.
This was said prior to the declaration of war, and prior to Israeli response.

Where is that "apparent" in Natan's text?

I said the wars after the theft of land were caused by the theft, otherwise the Arabs that began the wars would have waged them before the theft.

Arabs did began the war before the theft.

Infact, the conflict started in 1929 before jews even had any sort of forces, whether paramilitary or partisanic.

Just who do you think was living on that land prior to 1948?

Jews and Arabs.
And before 1880 also Jews and Arabs.

It is false to say that the land was only arab.

During certain times, when Jews had troubles getting there, the land was predominantly Arab. Because Arabs had no restrictions posed on their immigration by the Ottoman empire, nor the Brittish. The Jewish immigration was limted.

They would have if their land was still in their possession, maybe not to the "whole country", but to where they were. That's what a free people do when they need water and electricity.

Under which time were the arabs "free people"??

They were under the Ottoman Empire.
Trans Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudia were and are all feudalic kingdoms.

Oh really? They just invited you'll into their homes and walked away?

No, they fled their homes mostly, and some who posed threats were deported.

The lands were captred to allow for better defence, and since it was apparant the Arabs won't settle on going back to the way things were before the deportation, Israel stayed there.

You're ignoring the people who were already there - the people who were kicked off their land to create Israel.

How about Jews who were kicked off their land?
You know that trans-jordan occupied the west bank - well guess what, the oldest jewish comminities, who stayed there since the judaic kingdoms were living there.

And they were all kicked out if not massacared.

So now they are mostly settlers going back to their lands.

I would agree for jews to wave their rights once arabs do.

Hehe, well if it's "known", I guess I'll have to accept that as documentation.

Check an encyclopedia.
Anyway, being a human being of culture you should really be better with such images.

Or are you going to blame me of being stereotypical towards animals?

But you just said many immigrated there because of the economic growth produced by the Jews, so how is this evidence they re-produce like wild monkeys?

Ok, let me rearrange it:

From 1880-1948 : Arab growth due to unrestricted immigration

~1951 - 150,000 Arabs stay in Israel; 300,000-700,000 flee

200 - 1,000,000 Arabs in Israel; 4-5 Million Refugees

150,000 -> 1,000,000
700,000 -> 5,000,000

See?

Homeowners have the moral authority to repel those who would steal their homes. Those who would steal the homes lack that moral authority.

When Arab villages were used for gathering intell. and perpetrating assaults against jews, since, infact, the arabs and jews were in a war, there is every moral authority to secure land.

Instead of taking POWs we deported them.

Most of the non-combatants fled before the war.

Maybe I can if there are no more "wild monkey" analogies

They are very serious. I mean it. They reproduce fast!

Excuse me, but you guys keep using generalizations to "justify" the theft of lands taken from the innocent! "The Arabs" did not start hostilities, it may be true that SOME Arabs "started" hostilities if we ignore the theft of Arab land by Jews as actually starting the hostilities.

You keep changing dates.

Deportation of Arabs started in 1948.
Before that, no arabs were kicked out, let alone touched by jewish residence.

Arab hostilities towards jews started in 1929, while jewish politicians were debating about the best way to hopefully form a state without conflict with Arabs.

That would be a valid exchange if it was true. But don't tell me every or even most Arab landowner(s) voluntarily sold Jews their lands.

Not most. Some.
Remember, what we bought were swamps and rocky terrain.

So if two people pick a fight on your land and you flee for safety, the winner of the fight now gets your land?

Let's rephrase it in accordance with events:

I buy an apartment in a building in which I have some relatives.
Other people who also have relatives, buy apparments as well.
Soon the other people say they dislike me and my family and begin violent behaviour and steal our things and hurt us.
The building owner tells us no more relatives of our can come, nor are we allowed to defend ourselves.

After both groups, mad at the biased building owner, start to pick on him, he flees and tells us to devide it among ourselves according to some provisions he leaves, base don the condos which we own and condos which the other people own.

Immediately the other people declare war and say they won't rest until we're dead or out on the street.

Am I not to fight for my own defence?
And since the other people won't compromise, and the authorities do nothing to limit hostilities, we fight back and kick most of the other people on the street. Some of them flee on thier own fearing a war.

We end up with most appartments being ours and some are other people who agreed to live peacefully.

That's the story.

So what? And no, "generally" each Arab did not have relatives in the armies attacking Israel. Some probably did, and some obviously did not.

Why the "obviously" not if most of them immigrated from jordan and syria?
That was the exact reason why they were told to flee.
Arab armies didn't want to hurt their relatives by mistake.

Maybe some did, but some did not.

Well it's the active majority that counts.

It's a bit hard to ask a person whether he attacked you before, when he carries a rifle. And if he doesn't it's hard to tell if he's speaking the truth.

simple solution - every village that aids the arab-league is conquered. If there is resistance - they are deported. True, not all deported had resistance. Shameful, but in war nasty things happen.

Geez, do you guys understand that landowners have the moral authority to defend themselves and their land from those who are trying to steal it?

Geez, you are thick.

We didn't try to steal it.

They wanted all the land, part of which we owned or was allocated to us since we had a majority.

The land we bought was not stealing. They may think of it as "stealing from Islam" but it's ours.

The land we were allocated was due to a majority in those areas. We didn't claim that land at all. In the declaration of Independance the borders are not named. In the countrary, it contains a call to the arab neighbours to open negociations and reach an acceptable division of borders to all sides.

They resisted the idea of any jewish state, on land which they though was their own. But it wasn't since they immigrated there just like the jews, but in greater numbers.

When I referred to non-combatants, I was talking about Arab land/home owners who were not part of foreign Arab armies attacking Israel. And not every Arab homeowner waited around for Israeli soldiers to show up, they left fearing for their lives. But these "secured" villages, did they become part of "Israel" or were they returned to the rightful owners once the war was over?

Over?

The war was never over. We are in a state of a stalemate conflict with the Arab countries, and Jordan and Egypt refuse to take position for the rest.

The peace deal we hoped for with the PA was supposed to end the hostilities. The PA keeps evading a peace deal.

Barak offered 100,000 returns to Israel as part of "family return", and suggested to return some more over the course of 50 years.

The amount that fled is 300K-700K. We won't take each an every of the 5 million refugees, since Israel is an ethnical state.

Can you respond to what I said? I have no idea what this has to do with my comment. I said the Arab nations that attacked Israel did so because Israel was carved out from what were lands occupied by a variety of peoples including Arabs.

The lands were occupied by arabs, not owned.
Some lands were owned by us and occupied by arabs. And they worked for us and were paid for the lands, even though we bought it from landlords.

In any case -> We said "you don't like the division, let's sitdown and talk"
They said "we don't like you, die!"
We had two options:
a) hope they are reasonable people and die
b) leave land which we owned, into which we poured money and made it good. That means we are stateless and have to rely on the kindness of others.
c) fight

so we fought.

Yeah, I've stolen your home, let us now talk about how I get to keep it.

I've bought the appartmen next to yours.
You're liecing the appartment from the land lord.
I buy it and suggest we reach our own agreement.
You say "die fiend!"
I kick you out.

[Gareth Edmunson]

Actually, you're the one who has no clue how the world works, but because you are ignorant, have limited experiences, and then are too arrogant to see anyone else's perspective. There are many nations which have laws designed to alter or maintain the countries ethnic makeup or the relative power of the countries' ethnic groups. A short and by no means complete list:
Bosnia
Lebanon
Hungary
Russia
Germany
Kuwait and other gulf states
Latvia
Lithuania
Estonia
Kazakhstan
etc.

This is the 'if everyone jumps off a bridge, I should too' mentality. These countries, are wrong in doing what they're doing, but its still not based on religion. The Law of Return has nothing to do with ethnicity, it has to do with religion. A religion is not an ethnicity. The idea behind these countries' laws is that if people are (and can prove legally) of a certain ethnicity, that means that their families were at one time nationals of the German, Bosnian, etc states. So it becomes more a question of citizenship than anything else...and being a citizen of, or being born to a citizen of, a particular state is how the immigration laws of the US work. It may be slightly backwards, and I don't support them, but its not really that far fetched of an idea.

Israel on the other hand has their immigration based on religion. That means I could today convert to Judaeism and tommorow show up in Israel and have full citizenship. I have no ties in Israel, none of my family has ever set foot in the country, no one in my family has ever been a national of Israel, and yet, because I celebrate Passover (or at least because a Rabbai in Cincinnati signed a paper saying I do), I get special priveleges.

And second, I am not American, I'm British and live in Canada. I was only using the US as an example because they're most widely known.

And I don't like this excuse that Israel was founded for Jews to justify the Law of Return. Maybe Israel's foundation is illegitimate and ought to be reconsidered.

Israel has served its original purpose well, as in being a kind of huge refugee camp for the people that suffered under Germany and Russia during World War II (and then, having a Jewish 'homeland' was kiind of justified), but thats over. Its time for Israel to move on. Jews are in general some of (if not the) most affluent people in the world. Jews are in no danger of anything anymore...sure there's anti-semetism in parts of Europe, but there's racism in the US against blacks too, everyone is persecuted somewhere. There's no need for a State giving support for a particular religion.

What it comes down to, is Israel is trying to act like a Nation State when in actuality its just a State.

[Gareth Edmunson]

I've bought the appartmen next to yours.
You're liecing the appartment from the land lord.
I buy it and suggest we reach our own agreement.
You say "die fiend!"
I kick you out.

More like, Jews kick Arabs off land. Jews build appartment on land. Jews move into appartment. Arabs come and want land back. Jews say no, Arab says "Die Fiend!"

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Gareth Edmunson
This is the 'if everyone jumps off a bridge, I should too' mentality. These countries, are wrong in doing what they're doing, but its still not based on religion. The Law of Return has nothing to do with ethnicity, it has to do with religion. A religion is not an ethnicity. The idea behind these countries' laws is that if people are (and can prove legally) of a certain ethnicity, that means that their families were at one time nationals of the German, Bosnian, etc states. So it becomes more a question of citizenship than anything else...and being a citizen of, or being born to a citizen of, a particular state is how the immigration laws of the US work. It may be slightly backwards, and I don't support them, but its not really that far fetched of an idea.

I admit there's a problem, but I remind you that judaism is mainly an ethnicity.

When someone converts to judaism he is expected to "mingle" with jews and become of that ethnicity.

I know it's problematic. I'm thinking about it. We constantly talk about it in Political Science (Citizenship) classes.

However, jews were persecuted because of thier ethnicity and religion as well. Before the idea of race, jews were hated because of their religion.

However, Israel msut protect every jew, since those who pick on jews really don't care if they are converted or not.

Find me another religion or ethnicity which has had so many people picking on him.

Israel on the other hand has their immigration based on religion. That means I could today convert to Judaeism and tommorow show up in Israel and have full citizenship. I have no ties in Israel, none of my family has ever set foot in the country, no one in my family has ever been a national of Israel, and yet, because I celebrate Passover (or at least because a Rabbai in Cincinnati signed a paper saying I do), I get special priveleges.

Not exactly.
It's a bit problematic for convertees to get citizenship in Israel precisely because of that point.
So when you immigrate, you have to learn all the costums and stuff to make sure you're doing it for real and not to win "free refuge".

And second, I am not American, I'm British and live in Canada. I was only using the US as an example because they're most widely known.

Well I'm using a non-ethnical country such as US to show you an example.

Canada is the same.

And I don't like this excuse that Israel was founded for Jews to justify the Law of Return. Maybe Israel's foundation is illegitimate and ought to be reconsidered.

I disagree. The rising of anti-semitism througout the world in the recent years is suggesting that Israel is a good idea.

Who is going to save french jews whn the police hardly investigates hate crimes?

Israel has served its original purpose well, as in being a kind of huge refugee camp for the people that suffered under Germany and Russia during World War II (and then, having a Jewish 'homeland' was kiind of justified), but thats over. Its time for Israel to move on. Jews are in general some of (if not the) most affluent people in the world. Jews are in no danger of anything anymore...sure there's anti-semetism in parts of Europe, but there's racism in the US against blacks too, everyone is persecuted somewhere. There's no need for a State giving support for a particular religion.

Well then you're in disagreement with one of Willson's 14 rules, one of which is the freedom of each ethnicity and/or nationality to be self defined and self governed.

The Basques are not suffering. Nor are different religious groups in norther ireland. They only suffer from each other.

Still, each culture wants to rule itself according to it's own costums. Different countries are there for different purposes.

What it comes down to, is Israel is trying to act like a Nation State when in actuality its just a State.

It's a nation state alright, with plenty of minorities.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Gareth Edmunson
More like, Jews kick Arabs off land. Jews build appartment on land. Jews move into appartment. Arabs come and want land back. Jews say no, Arab says "Die Fiend!"

But that's not historically correct.

God dammit, read a friggin book on the history of palestine from 1880-1948.

You'll be surprised how incorrect and gruesome your generalization is.

Name me one event pre-1947 when jews or english kicked arabs out.

Arabs didn't "come back" in 1948, rather their armies came from other arab countries.

[faded glory]

Jews have always lived on the land. The ones who lived there were given independence..very few were immigrants(they arrived later).

Sirot is right.....the day Israel became independant, 3 hours after, 7 arab nations declared war. Orignally, Israel didnt even infringe upon palestine barely. It hugged the coast, and was only 1/4 the size of modern Israel.

But hey, to the victor goes the spoil's (land)

[Natan]

Originally posted by Gareth Edmunson
This is the 'if everyone jumps off a bridge, I should too' mentality.

No, its a refutation of your claim that the Law of Return is an anachronism. Bear in mind that Hungary and Russia only recently implemented their Laws of Return.

These countries, are wrong in doing what they're doing, but its still not based on religion. The Law of Return has nothing to do with ethnicity, it has to do with religion. A religion is not an ethnicity.

Jewish identity is too complicated to put squarely into either box. On the one hand, the Israeli supreme court has ruled that a person who converts to another religion cannot immigrate under the law of return, but there is no religious test or oath which immigrants are required to take. It's like a lot of ethnicites which are based on religion. For example, a Serb who converts to Islam is no longer a Serb because Serbian identity is largely defined by adherence to the eastern orthodox religion.

The idea behind these countries' laws is that if people are (and can prove legally) of a certain ethnicity, that means that their families were at one time nationals of the German, Bosnian, etc states.

No, quite the opposite. The laws are intended to help people who have not been in these states for hundreds of years to get in. An ethnic German from Volga or transylvania has probably never had any ancestors who were citizens of the German state. And that list isn't just of countries with some version of the Law of Return, its a list of countries with various policies to regulate their ethnic makeup. For example, Lebanon and Bosnia have complicated power sharing arrangements to make sure that no ethnic group gets too much power. IIRC, in Bosnia there are still separate ethnic armies.This goes to contradict your claim that ethnicity is irrelevant.

Israel on the other hand has their immigration based on religion. That means I could today convert to Judaeism and tommorow show up in Israel and have full citizenship. I have no ties in Israel, none of my family has ever set foot in the country, no one in my family has ever been a national of Israel, and yet, because I celebrate Passover (or at least because a Rabbai in Cincinnati signed a paper saying I do), I get special priveleges.

That's because unlike many other ethnic groups, there's a way to join the Jewish people. I think that makes it less backward, not more.

And second, I am not American, I'm British and live in Canada. I was only using the US as an example because they're most widely known.

My point that not all countries are founded on the same principles remains the same.

And I don't like this excuse that Israel was founded for Jews to justify the Law of Return. Maybe Israel's foundation is illegitimate and ought to be reconsidered.

After that you can reconsider the law of gravity, while you're altering the universe in impossible ways.

Israel has served its original purpose well, as in being a kind of huge refugee camp for the people that suffered under Germany and Russia during World War II (and then, having a Jewish 'homeland' was kiind of justified), but thats over. Its time for Israel to move on. Jews are in general some of (if not the) most affluent people in the world. Jews are in no danger of anything anymore...sure there's anti-semetism in parts of Europe, but there's racism in the US against blacks too, everyone is persecuted somewhere. There's no need for a State giving support for a particular religion.

This is what a lot of people told the early Zionists too. I don't believe that man's inhumanity to man is over; I don't believe that hatred of the Jewish people is over, and I don't believe there's anything wrong in acknowledging that. By the way, if you think anti-Semitism is over, get yourself a Syrian textbook or newspaper.

What it comes down to, is Israel is trying to act like a Nation State when in actuality its just a State.

Not sure what you mean here.