Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

12 million Jews in the world

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Natan -
    How did the Brits "take the land?"
    I understand that the British were the colonial power primarily responsible for setting up a "Jewish state" following WWII.

    what do you mean by "take the land" and when did it start?
    Stealing, and it began following WWII.

    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.
    If the state of Israel constituted only those lands acquired by Jews through these means, then you'd be right (although their lands - Jewish owned lands - were stolen to form Israel). But some of the lands taken to form Israel were owned by Arabs who did not sell to Jews.

    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.
    That "confiscation" is called theft.

    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.
    If these Germans acquired Polish and Czech land by virtue of Nazi occupation, you'd be right. But many Arabs were on the land before Arab armies attacked Israel and the Germans did not attack the Poles and Czechs to stop them from "confiscating" land owned by Germans.

    So Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Russia are stealing German water and electricity?
    If they took land owned by Germans, yes.
    But that's not what happened. The Germans were an occupying force and expelled (albeit replaced by another occupying force - the Russians).

    Are the Kurds stealing Iraqi oil? Not every border change is a theft.
    The Kurds have lived on that land for centuries.

    Not every border change is a theft.
    If your land is taken away by virtue of that change, then it is theft.

    Again, the expulsions can't be said to start before the 1948 war.
    I never said they did, I said they began afterwards.

    During that war, many Arabs left for a variety of reasons.
    Being forced off your land by someone else's war does not justify the "confiscation" of your land by the winner of that war.

    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.
    None of which justifies the theft of their land.

    Who was killed for refusing to give up their land?
    I didn't say anyone was killed, I said they were faced with the predicament of death should they try to keep their land - a predicament that led them to flee. But I would not be at all surprised if some Arabs refused to give up their land and were killed for resisting.

    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.
    When did I say the land should be turned over to Arafat? He isn't the legitimate owner either.

    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.
    Statute of limitations is a legal concept invented by governments that often has nothing to do with honoring the rightful owner's claim to their land. And if any Indian can show his ancestors owned the land my house sits on, I will offer them money to buy the land or take my house and go elsewhere. But that isn't going to happen because Indians did not live on my little plot of land. Had I been alive 150 years ago while the land owned by Indians was being "confiscated", I would have opposed that policy, not defended it!
    Two wrongs don't make a right...

    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.
    Were the Indians wrong for trying to rid their land of Europeans who were taking it? Whatever the motives of foreign Arab powers, the result was the "confiscation" of Arab land - Arabs who were not part of the foreign attempt to get rid of the Jews.

    Good, so you also oppose resolution 242.
    If that resolution "granted" land owned by Jews and Arabs to other Jews for the creation of Israel, then yes.

    He speaks for the Arab governments just as much as G.W. Bush speaks for America and Mullah Omar speaks for the Taliban.
    Speaking for a "government" is not the same as speaking for Arab landowners who lost their possessions because of a war engaged in by others.

    He spoke on the eve of the '48 war, and besides, genocide is not under any circumstances a form of self defense.
    If someone tries to steal your home, then "genocide" against the perpetrators is a valid form of self-defense. He did not say they would seek out Jews throughout the world to kill, only those Jews occupying the land of Arabs.
    If it was his intention to kill Jews who had a rightful claim to land in the Near East, then he was no better than any other thug. But his actions do not justify the confiscation of Arab lands.

    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.
    It began with the UN resolution "granting" Jews someone else's land.

    2) The Arabs were driving Jews off of their property throughout the war and before it.
    "The Arabs"? Don't you mean SOME Arabs? My actions do not justify your theft of someone else's land.

    Both Jews and Arabs.
    Exactly! And did the UN resolution "granting" Jews the land for the state of Israel respect the property rights of Arab and Jewish landowners?

    Well, sometimes they sold the land, other times the Arab armies kicked them out.
    So the Israeli army never kicked Arabs off their land? Give me a break! Either you or Sirotnikov already said the Israeli army "secured" villages and that the land was "confiscated" because the rightful owners never returned or returned "too late".

    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.
    And who did this? Other Jews? You didn't respond to my point, only identified others who were wrongfully forced off their land.

    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.
    He cited an Arab population for 1947 and a more recent figure to claim they breed like wild monkeys while also claiming the Jews created an economic situation that attracted Arab immigrants. He needed to show how much of that increase was do to immigration and pro-creation by the original Arab population before making - "justifying" - his analogy.

    So you agree that the Jews were right to defend themselves from the Arab states?
    Not necessarily. If I am trying to steal your neighbor's home, you have the moral authority to help your neighbor defend what is his. However, if these Arab states also meant to remove or kill the rightful Jewish and Arab landowners, then they were in the wrong too.

    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.
    Unless you can prove ALL Arabs living there were attacking the legitimate Jewish owners of land, then your comment is irrelevant.

    So do you.
    Example?

    Again, the "theft of the land" cannpot be said to begin until After the Arab states launched their war of genocide.
    I don't care when it began, the fact is, it began.

    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.
    Now you're citing the ideological and economic reasons for the buying and selling of land? I never said no land was bought or sold, only that the claim that Jews bought the land in an effort to deny the fact some land was stolen was an inaccurate generalization.

    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.
    But many did come back. My leaving for a year's vacation in Polynesia doesn't mean the "government" can hand my home over to one of the millions of immigrants to the US each year. Besides, not every Arab landowner just walked away from their land. And the UN resolution creating the state of Israel already took Arab lands before the war.

    And if more did than did not, then generally Arabs did
    Then it's up to you to prove your claim that more did than not. Did the fact many Japanese Americans had relatives in the Japanese army justify the "confiscation" of their lands?

    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.
    My neighbor's refusal to house me after you've stolen my home doesn't justify your actions.

    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.
    True, but not a right to steal the land or gun down Arabs not involved in the conflict.

    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.
    What propaganda? That a UN resolution just handed over land owned by Arabs to the new state of Israel?

    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.
    Why couldn't they return?

    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.
    Excuse me? The foreign Arab nations attacked on the heels of the UN resolution handing over Arab lands to create Israel. That was what I said, how you got something else from that is beyond me.

    Good, you're getting closer to the truth. But by this logic, the German invasion of Poland in 1939 was completely justified.
    How so? The Poles did not "confiscate" the lands of Germans in 1939.

    1) Again, any land confiscations began after the 48 war.
    The UN resolution and the willingness of the British and Israeli governments to enforce it constituted the confiscation.

    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.
    Which doesn't absolve the thief of his crime. And once again, you're attributing the words of a foreign Arab "leader" to the Arab landowners whose land was taken.

    Comment


    • #62
      Sirotnikov -
      Read some history:
      While nothing you said about the "history" of the region addressed my statement, it has nothing to do with justifying the "confiscation" of Arab lands by the UN, the British, or the Jews, for the state of Israel. Can you justify that confiscation without pointing to the evil Ottomans?

      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.
      Yeah, you already told me to read some history books. The British were the driving force behind the UN resolution "granting" the state of Israel Arab lands and they were the colonial power in charge of the region following WWII so I don't know how you guys can claim they weren't involved. The British left the region after Jewish terrorists killed British soldiers, but they left it in Israeli control in accordance with the UN resolution.

      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
      Yes, I applaud you'll for not committing genocide

      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?
      Who said the PLO should own those lands? Not me.

      Other arabs?
      There are no "other" arabs.
      And there was no palestinian nationality until it was invented after 67.
      Are you claiming there were no Arabs in that land who just wanted to be left alone on their property? That all the Arabs joined the war against Israel? As for the Palestinian nationality, so what? You'll have to explain it's relevance...

      Those arabs are and were all relatives and friends and allies. And they were not barred from carrying and owning weapons.
      Your generalizations are awfully convenient, kind of like the people who said the only good Indian is a dead Indian. Why did the Jews allow 150,000 Arabs to stay on their land if they were attacking the Jews? And what about all the Arabs who fled their land? Oops!

      Didn't America, in the 50s and 60s persecuted possible agents of communism?
      Yes, do you have a point? Are you suggesting the government had the right to take the lands of those deemed innocent?

      Didn't America in the 40s jailed Japanese immigrators?
      Geez, why do you guys continually try to justify the immoral actions of one group of people by pointing to the immoral actions of another group?

      Isn't America now treating with suspicion muslim or arab immigrants?
      I'm not. As for the government, a relative handful are being investigated. And if found innocent, they won't have their homes "confiscated". And many of the Arabs whose homes were taken to form Israel were not immigrants, the Jewish refugees arriving from Europe were.

      Most of the arabs, like most of the jews in 1948 Israel were immigrants that came between 1880 and 1948.
      And some were not, so what? If you own a piece of land and build a home on it, how would you react if someone showed up 30 years later to claim it as their own?

      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.
      That's right, and that's irrelevant. Comparing Arab landowners in Palestine to Nazis won't cut it.

      Jews settled in swamps, made them into fertile territory and then arabs, who immigrated at the same time, decide that it's "all theirs".
      And these Arabs were just as wrong as the Jews who took lands owned by Arabs.

      Well if you admit it won't happen, what's the point?
      The point is you're responible for your actions. Unlike you guys, I don't defend those who steal other people's lands.

      And had they not declared war nothing like this would have happenned.
      Irrelevant. If you flee your property because other people are having a shootout on your land with the winner claiming your land as "the spoils of victory", claiming your loss was caused by the people who started shooting first doesn't absolve the "victor" of his crime - stealing your land.

      Israel decided to grab territory to defend itself and it's right because it serves Israeli security.
      Your security needs do not justify stealing my land.

      Had arabs really wanted to co-exist the war wouldn't start.
      Some Arabs obviously did want to co-exist or they would have been killing their Jewish neighbors long before the UN resolution.

      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.
      I'm tired of repeating myself.

      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.
      Some of it was their land.

      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.
      It was said AFTER the state of Israel was created by the UN. It was no different than Lewis and Clark showing up in the west announcing to the Indians how they were now subjects of the USA. Had they known what that really meant - that their lands would soon be "confiscated" - they would have been justified in killing those trying to take their lands.

      Where is that "apparent" in Natan's text?
      It isn't in his text. Did I say it was?

      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.
      A war between you and your neighbor doesn't justify stealing my land. Have I failed to explain this to you yet?

      It is false to say that the land was only arab.
      I didn't, you were the one who said the Arabs never owned the land. I asked the simple question: who do you think was their before 1948 and you acknowledged Arabs and Jews.

      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.
      That is what they would have done IF they were free, geez.

      No, they fled their homes mostly, and some who posed threats were deported.
      My comment was sarcastic.

      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.
      "The lands were captured, and Israel stayed there"! That is the relevant part of your statement. Oh, the "deportation" bit is interesting though. As I have said, many Arabs were kicked off their land - "deported". I imagine you will tell me they deserved this though.

      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.
      I see you guys cannot avoid trying to justify what happened by pointing to the immoral actions of others. If this thread was about Trans-Jordan and it's past immoral actions, I would be condemning those actions. But the thread is not about Trans-Jordan...

      Check an encyclopedia.
      Anyway, being a human being of culture you should really be better with such images
      Sorry, I live in a land where comparing humans to monkeys can be a very sensitive matter

      Or are you going to blame me of being stereotypical towards animals?
      No, just questioning your analogy. Usually someone refers to a group of people who re-produce at a fast rate as breeding like rabbits. I never heard wild monkeys used for such an anaolgy.

      See?
      No, until you show how much of the population resulted from immigration after 1948 and how much from the original group procreating, your analogy is unsupported.

      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.
      Not keeping it.

      Instead of taking POWs we deported them.
      Which means the innocent were deported along with the guilty.

      Most of the non-combatants fled before the war.
      And after the war were they informed they could come back to their lands?

      You keep changing dates.
      What dates have I changed?

      Deportation of Arabs started in 1948. Before that, no arabs were kicked out, let alone touched by jewish residence.
      When the UN announced the creation of the Jewish state, they were announcing the land now belonged to the people running the Israeli state - the Jews. The Arabs could read the writing on the wall.

      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.
      How is this relevant?

      That's the story.
      Nice story, but your generalizations don't cut it.

      Why the "obviously" not if most of them immigrated from jordan and syria?
      Because Natan used a generalization that distorts the fact not all Arabs had relatives in the Arab armies attacking Israel.

      That was the exact reason why they were told to flee.
      Arab armies didn't want to hurt their relatives by mistake.
      The fact some did have relatives doesn't mean they "generally" did.

      Well it's the active majority that counts.
      Not to those who were non-combatants.

      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.
      It's so much easier just deporting them, huh?

      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.
      Finally the admission I was waiting for. Now, what attempts did Israel make following the war to right the wrongs they committed? Did they keep the land?

      Geez, you are thick.
      You're too kind.

      We didn't try to steal it.
      No, it just fell into your hands like manna from heaven.

      They wanted all the land, part of which we owned or was allocated to us since we had a majority.
      "They"? Try to use factual terms like, "some". Normally, expedient generalizations are to be tolerated, but not when they are used to justify criminal behavior.

      The land we bought was not stealing.
      Never said it was, nor was all the land bought.

      The land we were allocated was due to a majority in those areas.
      A majority before the immigration of Jews?

      We didn't claim that land at all.
      What do you think the creation of a nation-state called Israel means? It means a claim to land.

      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.
      I don't see your Arab neighbors launching any invasions. They may not like you'll being there, but the wars to remove you have not spanned the entire ~50 years since Israel's creation.

      The lands were occupied by arabs, not owned.
      Hmm...sounds like what Europeans said about the Indians.

      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.
      So you guys owned the lands and they were the occupying force? I'll have to be thicker to buy that nonsense.

      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.
      And used the fact some Arabs wanted you to leave and used violence to make you leave as an excuse to steal from other Arabs, and you guys are still using that excuse in this thread.

      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.
      So the Arabs who owned land were only leasing it? Another nice story...

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Berzerker
        I understand that the British were the colonial power primarily responsible for setting up a "Jewish state" following WWII.
        Stealing, and it began following WWII.

        You're throwing around baseless generalizations.
        The brittish were anti-jewish.
        The jews didn't "steal" land.
        When formed, Israel didn't even pretend for the lands it was allocated. Ben Gurion's message was basically "the UN acknowledged we have a right to form a state, let's talk what areas can we have and on what terms".

        If the state of Israel constituted only those lands acquired by Jews through these means, then you'd be right (although their lands - Jewish owned lands - were stolen to form Israel)

        Grr?
        How were those lands stolen from jews if jews lived in them?
        Those lands weren't private property but rather "jewish" property. There were jewish funds who bought lands, and private people who bought it for jews.

        The idea of private property was against jewish principles then, as while trying to set up a state, they cooperated and lived as a community instead of individuals.

        The kibutzes are based on the same thing.

        And still, in Israel there is no private land, but all land is owned by the state, and you leise it for 99 years or so, when you pay for land.

        But some of the lands taken to form Israel were owned by Arabs who did not sell to Jews.

        It's problematic, since mostly the land belonged to either the ottoman government or smaller landowners. Israeli funds bought lands from the ottoman govt. and from the landlords.

        Until the brittish occupation, palestine was a very feudalic place. So those who lived there didn't own it.

        The division suggested by the brittish and another by the UN were based on the local majority in each area. True, jews were a bit over allocated, but the declaration of independance didn't proclaim it illegal for arabs to live there, nor did it say the devision must be according to the suggestions.

        Israel suggested negociations.


        I don't get your logic that well. Tell me, if you in america own a piece of land, does it mean it is no longer american ? Is it Berzerkerland? No, it's still american land.

        That "confiscation" is called theft.

        Well there wouldn't be theft had the arabs were more reasonable and chose not to declare war instead of talking.

        But many Arabs were on the land before Arab armies attacked Israel and the Germans did not attack the Poles and Czechs to stop them from "confiscating" land owned by Germans.

        No arabs were kicked from the land they sat in prior to the war.
        And the confiscating started AFTER the declaration of war. You keep ignoring that.

        If they took land owned by Germans, yes.
        But that's not what happened. The Germans were an occupying force and expelled (albeit replaced by another occupying force - the Russians).

        You are a very confused man.
        These ideas of owning things, while nice and do work well inside of democratic states, do not really apply to geo-political conflicts, merely since there is no agreed upon authority to decide, nor does it have the power to enforce decisions.

        Americans are now sitting on lands which previosly were spannish, french, brittish and originally indian. Are they stealing their water and electricity?

        The Kurds have lived on that land for centuries.

        And jews exist in judea and israel since around 5000 years ago. Even 12,000 years ago if you consider abraham a proper jewish authority.

        If your land is taken away by virtue of that change, then it is theft.

        That means that the settlers can't be uprooted, since a peace deal which will set borders will be theft

        I never said they did, I said they began afterwards.

        Then you can't say that the war declared by Arabs was a result of theft, since infact there was no theft prior to the war.

        Israel was declared without borders.

        Being forced off your land by someone else's war does not justify the "confiscation" of your land by the winner of that war.

        Fine, then in that case we own this land anyway.
        We owned it from 5000 BC.
        We were expelled by the assyrians, babilonians and romans.

        Does that mean that Arab conquerors in the 7th century AD can come here, and claim this as theirs?

        None of which justifies the theft of their land.

        It might be difficult for you to understand, but in a not perfect world, in war you do not justified things.

        Since we had our lives and safety to think about this was justified.

        I didn't say anyone was killed, I said they were faced with the predicament of death should they try to keep their land - a predicament that led them to flee.

        Israelis didn't threaten them to leave.
        Those who were expelled weren't asked nicely or even threatened.

        Those who fled did so because of the impending threat of war, declared by ARABS.

        But I would not be at all surprised if some Arabs refused to give up their land and were killed for resisting.

        I wouldn't be surprised if jews refused to give up their owned lands and thier right for a state, and fought to save themselves and thier state.

        When did I say the land should be turned over to Arafat? He isn't the legitimate owner either.


        Do you actually suggest that this land once again turn into a feudalic regime in which every patch of land is owned by a small group?

        Maybe I misunderstood you, in which case I'm sorry, but if you are actuially suggesting that instead of setting up states, land would be devided into little bits among private owners - you are an idiot.

        Comment


        • #64
          I'd write more but I'm sick and it's hard.

          Comment


          • #65
            The brittish were anti-jewish
            Really? They allowed jewish immigration into Palestine at a time when the majority of Palestine's population was against it. Explain how overriding the wishes of the majority in favour of jews is anti-jewish, please.

            And jews exist in judea and israel since around 5000 years ago. Even 12,000 years ago if you consider abraham a proper jewish authority
            Most of the current Jewish inhabitants of Israel are descended from people who moved out of the current borders of Israel something like a thousand years ago and who didn't live there again until the last half-century. They are in no way entitled to walk back in and claim proper authority over the land any more than I'm allowed to go back to Scotland, buy up some land, declare my property a sovereign nation and allow open immigration to my friends.
            Last edited by KrazyHorse; January 7, 2002, 18:45.
            12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
            Stadtluft Macht Frei
            Killing it is the new killing it
            Ultima Ratio Regum

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by KrazyHorse
              Really? They allowed jewish immigration into Palestine at a time when the majority of Palestine's population was against it. Explain how overriding the wishes of the majority in favour of jews is anti-jewish, please.
              They infact didn't allow immigration.
              They began by limiting it and went on to making it illegal.
              That didn't stop us from coming though

              However, no such restrictions existed towards arabs from neighboring areas.

              And infact many of the arabs immigrated into Palestine following the jewish immigration, since the jews started drying up the swamps and set up farms and agriculture. They were shor in working hands, so arab immigrated and worked for them.

              Also, jews were not allowed to carry weapons. No such prohibitions applied to the arabs -> many jews were harrassed and massacared by arabs.

              Most of the current Jewish inhabitants of Israel are descended from people who moved out of the current borders of Israel something like a thousand years ago and who didn't live there again until the last half-century. They are in no way entitled to walk back in and claim proper authority over the land any more than I'm allowed to go back to Scotland, buy up some land, declare my property a sovereign nation and allow open immigration to my friends.

              Palestine was not that heavily occupied. It was an area of swamps, rocks and deserts with small amounts of people living here.

              Most of the arab inhabitants of palestine in 1947 were descended from, or were those who immigrated into palestine during the same time frame like jews, but in bigger numbers.

              Why are they entitled to a "greater palestine" and we're not entitled to "Israel"?

              Comment


              • #67
                They infact didn't allow immigration
                They did allow immigration. Just not open immigration. If they hadn't allowed immgration post-1918 (1917?) then Jews would have remained even more of a minority than they were in 1948.

                Palestine was not that heavily occupied. It was an area of swamps, rocks and deserts with small amounts of people living here


                Irrelevant. They owned the land (whether or not they had pieces of paper saying they did), and had the right to dispose of it as they wished. The Ottomans and then the British ruled the territory without real regard to the wishes of its population.

                Most of the arab inhabitants of palestine in 1947 were descended from, or were those who immigrated into palestine during the same time frame like jews, but in bigger numbers


                I'd like to see some documentation on this. Jerusalem was hardly an abandoned city under the Ottoman empire.
                12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                Stadtluft Macht Frei
                Killing it is the new killing it
                Ultima Ratio Regum

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Berzerker
                  Natan -
                  First, let me state that I am not going to respond to everything you’ve said, because it some places it would be tangential or redundant to do so, and this is a very long thread which I’ve already lost several attempted posts in due to bugs. If you think I left out anything important, just say so.
                  I understand that the British were the colonial power primarily responsible for setting up a "Jewish state" following WWII.
                  No, the British supported the Arabs on the theory that military aid would secure continued hegemony for them over the Arab world. That’s why they trained, equipped, and aided the Arab legion.
                  If the state of Israel constituted only those lands acquired by Jews through these means, then you'd be right (although their lands - Jewish owned lands - were stolen to form Israel). But some of the lands taken to form Israel were owned by Arabs who did not sell to Jews.
                  You seem to be under the misconception that all land in Israel is owned by the government. This is simply false. The government owns most of the land because they inherited it from the British, who nationalized whatever land they were unsure of the status of (the Ottomans were bad record keepers) and then some more land was acquired from absentee landowners or the Jewish National Fund, which turned its land over to the government. But there are and always have been plenty of people, both Jews and Arabs, who own their own land.
                  If these Germans acquired Polish and Czech land by virtue of Nazi occupation, you'd be right. But many Arabs were on the land before Arab armies attacked Israel
                  This is exactly analogous: Germans attack Poland to liberate Germans in Polish corridor, afterwards, Poles kick out same Germans in Polish corridor. Arabs attack Israel to liberate Arabs in it, afterwards, Israel kicks many of them out. Neither Arabs nor Germans are acting in self-defense here.
                  and the Germans did not attack the Poles and Czechs to stop them from "confiscating" land owned by Germans.
                  The Arabs weren’t acting to prevent land confiscation either, since:
                  A) it hadn’t started yet
                  B) They weren’t opposed to it
                  I’m emphasizing this, along with the genocidal nature of the Arab invasion, because you keep emphasizing the idea of self-defense, which you apparently think the Arab invasion was an example of. If that’s not what you meant, I’m sorry.
                  If they took land owned by Germans, yes.
                  But that's not what happened. The Germans were an occupying force and expelled (albeit replaced by another occupying force - the Russians).
                  No, land which had been in Germany in 1939 and indeed had been German since the middle ages was taken by Russia and Poland and in most cases, the German inhabitants expelled. Köningsberg has always been a German city.
                  [QUOTE}
                  I didn't say anyone was killed, I said they were faced with the predicament of death should they try to keep their land - a predicament that led them to flee.[/QUOTE]
                  Who threatened them with death? The Arab armies, yes (although they didn’t mean it) but not the Jewish ones.
                  But I would not be at all surprised if some Arabs refused to give up their land and were killed for resisting.
                  Obviously it’s impossible for me to prove that no Jew ever killed an Arab who refused to leave his property, but if you have any evidence that such events were at all common (one psycho doesn’t prove anything) I’d be interested to see it.
                  Statute of limitations is a legal concept invented by governments that often has nothing to do with honoring the rightful owner's claim to their land. And if any Indian can show his ancestors owned the land my house sits on, I will offer them money to buy the land or take my house and go elsewhere. But that isn't going to happen because Indians did not live on my little plot of land. Had I been alive 150 years ago while the land owned by Indians was being "confiscated", I would have opposed that policy, not defended it!
                  Two wrongs don't make a right...
                  I disagree. If two wrongs don’t make a right, that means you shouldn’t kick someone who paid good money for their home off of it because of an earlier occupant who was kicked off. Saying that a statute of limitations is illegitimate would throw vast swathes of the Earth into more or less permanent economic turmoil.
                  Were the Indians wrong for trying to rid their land of Europeans who were taking it? Whatever the motives of foreign Arab powers, the result was the "confiscation" of Arab land - Arabs who were not part of the foreign attempt to get rid of the Jews.
                  Right, and since that was the result rather than the cause, the Arab invasion was not self defense.
                  If that resolution "granted" land owned by Jews and Arabs to other Jews for the creation of Israel, then yes.
                  Again, ceding the land to Israel did not automatically disenfranchise its owners. In fact, the resolution which created Israel (181) specifically called for the recognition of the rights of all, stating that Israel would adopt a Constitution:
                  “d. Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association; “
                  If someone tries to steal your home, then "genocide" against the perpetrators is a valid form of self-defense.
                  No, civillians cannot be killed because people of the same ethnic group did a bad thing.
                  He did not say they would seek out Jews throughout the world to kill, only those Jews occupying the land of Arabs.
                  But throughout the middle east they would be expelled and throughout Israel/Palestine, killed.
                  If it was his intention to kill Jews who had a rightful claim to land in the Near East, then he was no better than any other thug. But his actions do not justify the confiscation of Arab lands.
                  Subsequent Arab actions during the war dispel any doubt which anyone could have had about Azzam Pasha’s statements.
                  Exactly! And did the UN resolution "granting" Jews the land for the state of Israel respect the property rights of Arab and Jewish landowners?
                  Yes. You’ve obviously never read it.
                  And who did this? Other Jews? You didn't respond to my point, only identified others who were wrongfully forced off their land.
                  First the British government (to prevent an Arab uprising) and later the Arab armies.
                  He cited an Arab population for 1947 and a more recent figure to claim they breed like wild monkeys while also claiming the Jews created an economic situation that attracted Arab immigrants. He needed to show how much of that increase was do to immigration and pro-creation by the original Arab population before making - "justifying" - his analogy.
                  But conjecture served just fine in place of statistics when you wanted to show that drugs don’t cause crime. Yeah, I know, it’s a cheap shot.
                  Not necessarily. If I am trying to steal your neighbor's home, you have the moral authority to help your neighbor defend what is his. However, if these Arab states also meant to remove or kill the rightful Jewish and Arab landowners, then they were in the wrong too.
                  It would be difficult to prove “intent,” but certainly they disrespected people’s property rights.
                  Example?
                  “If someone tries to steal your home, then "genocide" against the perpetrators is a valid form of self-defense.”
                  I don't care when it began, the fact is, it began.
                  This is vital in determining whether the Arab invasion was self-defence.
                  Now you're citing the ideological and economic reasons for the buying and selling of land? I never said no land was bought or sold, only that the claim that Jews bought the land in an effort to deny the fact some land was stolen was an inaccurate generalization.
                  Again, it would be impossible to prove that no Jew ever stole land from an Arab before the 1948 war, but if you have any evidence of it ever happening, I’d again be quite interested in seeing it, for the same reason. To be frank, it quite simply didn’t happen.
                  My neighbor's refusal to house me after you've stolen my home doesn't justify your actions.
                  If he’s stolen the other half and helped me drag you out, I think he’d better give you some help before he starts accusing me.
                  True, but not a right to steal the land or gun down Arabs not involved in the conflict.
                  Agreed, naturally.
                  What propaganda? That a UN resolution just handed over land owned by Arabs to the new state of Israel?
                  Either that the Jews were killing all Arabs in their wake, or that Arabs who stayed would be punished while Arabs who fled (part of a scorched earth policy, apparently) would be rewarded.
                  Why couldn't they return?
                  Arab policy for decades, IIRC.
                  Excuse me? The foreign Arab nations attacked on the heels of the UN resolution handing over Arab lands to create Israel. That was what I said, how you got something else from that is beyond me.
                  I thought you had actually read the resolution before mouthing off about it.
                  How so? The Poles did not "confiscate" the lands of Germans in 1939.
                  And the Israelis didn’t confiscate the lands of Arabs in 1946.
                  The UN resolution and the willingness of the British and Israeli governments to enforce it constituted the confiscation.
                  Wrong on all counts.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by KrazyHorse
                    They did allow immigration. Just not open immigration. If they hadn't allowed immgration post-1918 (1917?) then Jews would have remained even more of a minority than they were in 1948.
                    I'm glad you consider acts such as putting jews who had only escaped nazi deathcamps in concentration camps on Cyprus to be an approval for jewish immigration.

                    Irrelevant. They owned the land (whether or not they had pieces of paper saying they did), and had the right to dispose of it as they wished. The Ottomans and then the British ruled the territory without real regard to the wishes of its population.

                    How does immigrating to a piece of land and settling in it constitute owning it?

                    Most arabs as most jews immigrated to palestine after 1880.


                    I'd like to see some documentation on this. Jerusalem was hardly an abandoned city under the Ottoman empire.

                    I'll search for it tommorow.

                    Jerusalem wasn't abandoned, and had a nice jewish population as well.

                    But the rest of palestine wasn't as lively as we know it today.

                    The fact is that most of the lands on the coast where immigrating jews settled were swamps, which jews dried up. I can tell you from personal experience since in school trips we visited several areas which are still rather swampy.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Sirotnikov -
                      You're throwing around baseless generalizations.
                      The brittish were anti-jewish.
                      The jews didn't "steal" land.
                      Following WWII which colonial power was in charge of that region? The British! And I don't care if you think they were "anti-Jewish", they were the colonial power behind establishing the state of Israel with the UN's approval. And that establishment constituted the taking of lands owned by Jews, Arabs, and others who lived there, I call that stealing.

                      When formed, Israel didn't even pretend for the lands it was allocated. Ben Gurion's message was basically "the UN acknowledged we have a right to form a state, let's talk what areas can we have and on what terms".
                      And this helps your argument? This is an admission that land there was to be taken to form Israel, and I have no reason to believe the rightful owners of land prior to the UN's proclamation mattered one bit. Was this Gurion going to go around asking all the land owners if they would sell or offer their land to create this state?

                      Grr? How were those lands stolen from jews if jews lived in them?
                      If other Jews used those lands to create Israel. The rightful owners (some?) may have allowed for their property to be used for that purpose, but neither you nor I know this for sure. I merely allowed for the possibility that if there were Jewish land owners who did not want their lands used for this purpose, they would have been among the victims.

                      Those lands weren't private property but rather "jewish" property. There were jewish funds who bought lands, and private people who bought it for jews.
                      Then the property belonged to those Jews who funded their acquisition - still private property.

                      The idea of private property was against jewish principles then, as while trying to set up a state, they cooperated and lived as a community instead of individuals.
                      If the Jews who owned the land voluntarily offered it to create the state, then that was not theft.

                      And still, in Israel there is no private land, but all land is owned by the state, and you leise it for 99 years or so, when you pay for land.
                      Even Arab lands? Hmm...

                      It's problematic, since mostly the land belonged to either the ottoman government or smaller landowners. Israeli funds bought lands from the ottoman govt. and from the landlords.
                      Ah, so Jews bought the land from a thief? The Ottoman's had no moral claim to the land either. But it is problematic nonetheless since those Jews who now own lands previously stolen aren't going to give them up any more than any other people who now occupy once stolen lands are going to return them.

                      Until the brittish occupation, palestine was a very feudalic place. So those who lived there didn't own it.
                      Feudalism doesn't negate the moral claims of landowners to their land. IF Arabs living their stole the land recently from Jews, then those Jews would have a moral claim to the lands they lost. Given the fact so many conquerors have criss-crossed that land, establishing rightful ownership is difficult.

                      I don't get your logic that well. Tell me, if you in america own a piece of land, does it mean it is no longer american ? Is it Berzerkerland? No, it's still american land.
                      The situation here is irrelevant to what is moral or right.

                      Well there wouldn't be theft had the arabs were more reasonable and chose not to declare war instead of talking.
                      You're not listening (reading). It doesn't matter if some Arabs declared war on Israel. That doesn't justify using lands owned by other Arabs to create a country any more than Arabs using Jewish lands to form a country.

                      No arabs were kicked from the land they sat in prior to the war.
                      And the confiscating started AFTER the declaration of war. You keep ignoring that.
                      Are you suggesting the UN resolution, Great Britain and Jews meant to create Israel by using only those lands owned by Jews willing to turn the land over for that purpose and not lands owned by others who did not want to hand over the property?

                      You are a very confused man.
                      And I'm better than some at debating people without using insults.

                      These ideas of owning things, while nice and do work well inside of democratic states, do not really apply to geo-political conflicts, merely since there is no agreed upon authority to decide, nor does it have the power to enforce decisions.
                      And this reveals my "confusion"? They - ideas of ownership - don't work well within democratic states because majorities have proven themselves quite willing to ignore property rights. And if Arab armies took your land, that would be a morally neutral act because it happened during a "geo-political conflict"? The authority rests with the rightful owner and the power to enforce decisions should too.

                      Americans are now sitting on lands which previosly were spannish, french, brittish and originally indian. Are they stealing their water and electricity?
                      The colonial powers - monarchs - had no moral claim to the land so lets deal with the people who did settle the land. If they took Indian land, then they stole it. If they bought it, they are the rightful owners. If it was uninhabited and unclaimed as was most of the land, then they were the rightful owners. Those who stole land stole the resources - water, etc - from the rightful owners. Besides, there is strong evidence caucasoid peoples were among the first peoples to settle N America.

                      And jews exist in judea and israel since around 5000 years ago. Even 12,000 years ago if you consider abraham a proper jewish authority.
                      And their property rights should have been respected just like the rights of Arab landowners, not confiscated because of someone else's war. But what source do you have from Abraham going back 12,000 years?

                      That means that the settlers can't be uprooted, since a peace deal which will set borders will be theft
                      No, only if the border change causes the owners to lose their land. A border change doesn't have to uproot anyone.

                      Then you can't say that the war declared by Arabs was a result of theft, since infact there was no theft prior to the war.
                      Depends on the implications of the UN resolution and the intent of Britain and the Jews. If the creation of Israel meant the taking - near future or immediate - of Arab lands, then that may have been a cause for the war. If the state of Israel was created with only those lands belonging to Jews willing to hand them over, and there was no intent to take Arab lands, then there can be no justification for war. While I'm not a fan of pre-emptive strikes, Israel did bomb an Iraqi facility to slow their progress toward nukes, so the Arabs may have been launching a pre-emptive strike to stop Israel from taking Arab lands.

                      Israel was declared without borders.
                      Quite a declaration, a meaningless one. But obviously some of Israel's Arab neighbors didn't see it as meaningless.

                      Fine, then in that case we own this land anyway. We owned it from 5000 BC. We were expelled by the assyrians, babilonians and romans.
                      Umm...not according to the Bible. God commanded the Israelites to go throughout that land smiting the people who lived there. Besides, this is not about returning lands to the alleged descendants of long lost peoples, it's about recent events and the morality or immorality of those events.

                      Does that mean that Arab conquerors in the 7th century AD can come here, and claim this as theirs?
                      Nope. The land belonged to the people living their, not any conquerors regardless of their identity.

                      It might be difficult for you to understand, but in a not perfect world, in war you do not justified things.
                      Are you admitting the taking of Arab lands was unjustified?

                      Since we had our lives and safety to think about this was justified.
                      In your mind, not mine. A threat to my life does not justify taking your land.

                      Israelis didn't threaten them to leave. Those who were expelled weren't asked nicely or even threatened.
                      Those who were expelled were not threatened? That would be quite a trick...

                      Those who fled did so because of the impending threat of war, declared by ARABS.
                      The identity of those about to attack doesn't mean the winner of the war gets the land of people getting out of the way.

                      I wouldn't be surprised if jews refused to give up their owned lands and thier right for a state, and fought to save themselves and thier state.
                      What does this have to do with the possibility that some Arab land owners were killed for not leaving or giving up their land?

                      Do you actually suggest that this land once again turn into a feudalic regime in which every patch of land is owned by a small group?
                      I'm suggesting that the rightful owners be allowed to keep their land.

                      Maybe I misunderstood you, in which case I'm sorry, but if you are actuially suggesting that instead of setting up states, land would be devided into little bits among private owners - you are an idiot
                      A "state" is nothing more than a group of people. If you and your neighbors decide to create a "state" with my property, then you have committed an immoral act. Goodbye.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Natan -
                        First, let me state that I am not going to respond to everything you’ve said, because it some places it would be tangential or redundant to do so, and this is a very long thread which I’ve already lost several attempted posts in due to bugs. If you think I left out anything important, just say so.
                        Okay, much of our debate has been covered in my debate with Sirotnikov anyway and I find I'm just repeating arguments to both of you.

                        No, the British supported the Arabs on the theory that military aid would secure continued hegemony for them over the Arab world. That’s why they trained, equipped, and aided the Arab legion.
                        I'm sure the British didn't want to antagonise the Arabs, but where were the pro-Arab, anti-Jewish British when the shooting began? Where did the Jews get the weapons to fight with? If the Brits were really as pro-Arab and anti-Jewish as you guys claim, they would have opposed creating Israel, but they didn't help the Arabs in their war so I have to believe they were walking a thin line between angering the Arabs and remaining aloof enough so Israel could become a state.

                        You seem to be under the misconception that all land in Israel is owned by the government. This is simply false.
                        I didn't say the government owns all the land, only that the state of Israel was formed using other people's land (or claiming jurisdiction over it).

                        The government owns most of the land because they inherited it from the British
                        And the British were a colonial power who used force to take land owned by others. I don't have a moral claim to an inheritance from a father who got the money from robbing banks.

                        then some more land was acquired from absentee landowners or the Jewish National Fund, which turned its land over to the government.
                        And why were these "absentee" owners gone? Expulsion? The war?

                        But there are and always have been plenty of people, both Jews and Arabs, who own their own land.
                        Subject to those ruling the new government.

                        This is exactly analogous: Germans attack Poland to liberate Germans in Polish corridor, afterwards, Poles kick out same Germans in Polish corridor. Arabs attack Israel to liberate Arabs in it, afterwards, Israel kicks many of them out. Neither Arabs nor Germans are acting in self-defense here.
                        First, the Germans attacked to gain "breathing room" along with their Russian ally, not liberate Germans living in Poland. Second, Poland was already a nation-state with a long history, Israel was a new state being carved out of lands owned by Jews and Arabs.

                        The Arabs weren’t acting to prevent land confiscation either, since:
                        A) it hadn’t started yet
                        B) They weren’t opposed to it
                        I’m emphasizing this, along with the genocidal nature of the Arab invasion, because you keep emphasizing the idea of self-defense, which you apparently think the Arab invasion was an example of. If that’s not what you meant, I’m sorry.
                        I'll agree the actions of neighboring Arab nations probably wasn't altruistic, but they didn't attack until after it became clear the creation of Israel was imminent.
                        Whether they attacked out of a desire to protect Arab hegemony or defend Arabs living on those lands is another matter. But a rational and sincere person would have sat down and talked with this Gurion about just what "Israel" meant to Arab landowners there and the Muslim holy sites.

                        No, land which had been in Germany in 1939 and indeed had been German since the middle ages was taken by Russia and Poland and in most cases, the German inhabitants expelled. Köningsberg has always been a German city.
                        Then the Germans might have had a right to invade to an extent. But the fact Germany and Russia carved up Poland doesn't support that motive.

                        Who threatened them with death? The Arab armies, yes (although they didn’t mean it) but not the Jewish ones.
                        When the shooting begins, the threat of death comes from those doing the shooting. Just how did the Israeli army go around securing villages without threatening or killing people who wanted them off their land?

                        Obviously it’s impossible for me to prove that no Jew ever killed an Arab who refused to leave his property, but if you have any evidence that such events were at all common (one psycho doesn’t prove anything) I’d be interested to see it.
                        I have none, that's just what happens when a war starts. Even with smart bombs and surgical strikes, innocent people are often in the way.

                        I disagree. If two wrongs don’t make a right, that means you shouldn’t kick someone who paid good money for their home off of it because of an earlier occupant who was kicked off. Saying that a statute of limitations is illegitimate would throw vast swathes of the Earth into more or less permanent economic turmoil.
                        There is a difference between a government announcing how the land it just seized during a war now belongs to that government because the "statute of limitations" invented by that same government doesn't allow the people who fled for their lives because of the war to return to claim their land and the alleged descendants of a people lone gone from a piece of land arriving to claim ownership. If there were Arabs who simply refused to return with no coercion shaping their decision, then that land could and should have been sold off.

                        Right, and since that was the result rather than the cause, the Arab invasion was not self defense.
                        Self-defense is not limited to the person being threatened, you can act in defense of someone else. The relevant question becomes: were Arab land owners threatened with harm or being subjected to a newly created foreign government (Israel) that would soon or immediately claim authority to make decisions about them and their land? Like I said, the attacking Arab nations probably didn't care much about the Arabs living there, not enough to wage a war anyway. Their motives probably had more to do with protecting Arab hegemony or preventing Arab holy sites from coming under Jewish control.

                        Again, ceding the land to Israel did not automatically disenfranchise its owners.
                        Maybe you meant something else here, ceding the land is a disenfranchisement of the owners.

                        quote]In fact, the resolution which created Israel (181) specifically called for the recognition of the rights of all, stating that Israel would adopt a Constitution:
                        “d. Guaranteeing to all persons equal and non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly and association; “[/quote]

                        Sounds all very noble, and probably better than the existing situation. However, if I was an Arab land owner and was just told my existence was now subject to the decisions of others, I would consider that a "disenfranchisement" of my authority to live my life as I choose. And if anyone ever needed to see just how meaningless a "constitution" with rights written into really is, just look at the USA.

                        No, civillians cannot be killed because people of the same ethnic group did a bad thing.
                        Agreed, I was referring to the perpetrators, not the innocent. I have no doubt the attacking Arab armies would have murdered Jews who had rightful claims to land there. But that works both ways, in favor of those Arab land owners who were not taking part in the war. I understand nasty things happen in war time, but efforts to correct the correctable wrongs need to be made when the shooting is done. Did Israel make a sincere effort to see to it that the lands of "absentee" Arab land owners seized during the war were returned?

                        But throughout the middle east they would be expelled and throughout Israel/Palestine, killed.
                        Then he was just another mass murderer (or would-be mass murderer, lol)

                        Yes. You’ve obviously never read it.
                        Hehe, nope.

                        But conjecture served just fine in place of statistics when you wanted to show that drugs don’t cause crime. Yeah, I know, it’s a cheap shot.
                        Which is why I was only kidding with him. But he could have shown the actual immigration numbers of Arabs entering Israel after 1948 since it is relevant to his analogy.

                        It would be difficult to prove “intent,” but certainly they disrespected people’s property rights.
                        Example?

                        “If someone tries to steal your home, then "genocide" against the perpetrators is a valid form of self-defense.”
                        Now now, you got that example from the same post in which I asked for the example (I think). Besides, the key word in there is "perpetrators". I was not referring to all Jews, only those who were guilty of stealing Arab lands.

                        This is vital in determining whether the Arab invasion was self-defence.
                        True, but doesn't discount a perceived threat. If someone is walking around your land with a gun, calling the police is an act of self-defense. And I have to believe (well, maybe not) that the Arab neighbors perceived a threat of some kind. But I'll admit my position is a bit dicey given the fact the Arabs attacked so quickly without an effort to resolve questions pertinent to their concerns.

                        Again, it would be impossible to prove that no Jew ever stole land from an Arab before the 1948 war, but if you have any evidence of it ever happening, I’d again be quite interested in seeing it, for the same reason. To be frank, it quite simply didn’t happen.
                        Individual acts of stealing would be irrelevant to my argument. I don't know enough about the history of the land before 1948 (or after for that matter), but would be interested in any decent books on the subject. It's what happened after 1947-8 that I'm looking at.

                        If he’s stolen the other half and helped me drag you out, I think he’d better give you some help before he starts accusing me.
                        Lol.

                        Either that the Jews were killing all Arabs in their wake, or that Arabs who stayed would be punished while Arabs who fled (part of a scorched earth policy, apparently) would be rewarded.
                        But one not need believe this nonsense to want to get out of the way. I don't know if Arabs bought this stuff, but they did know a war was brewing and they would be in the way if they stuck around.

                        Arab policy for decades, IIRC.
                        You mean the policies of neighboring Arab countries? Where did the Arab immigrants who entered Israel after the war come from?

                        I thought you had actually read the resolution before mouthing off about it.
                        No, just what you guys have said about it, sorry for mouthing off.

                        And the Israelis didn’t confiscate the lands of Arabs in 1946.
                        Not physically, but the groundwork was laid. When you and your friends create a "state" that has jurisdiction encompassing my land, that is an attack on my sovereignty.

                        Wrong on all counts.
                        When Lewis and Clark told Indians way out in Idaho that they were now subjects of the Great White Father back east, was that a confiscation of their lands? Of course not, but it was a claim of jurisdictional authority which means a loss of soveignty and may lead to a physical confiscation of land depending on the whim of those with that authority. That is the confiscation I am talking about.
                        In addition to, of course, the confiscations that occured during and after the war...

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Can we just sum this up as:

                          Pro-Israel: You're wrong.

                          Not pro-Israel: No, you're wrong.

                          However, it seems to me that a lot of the pro-Israeli's believe creation myths of the equivalent of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree and throwing silver dollars across the Potomac.

                          There was a lot of nasty sh*t between the Israelis and the Arabs for a long time. The act of the creation of Israel necessitated doing some very evil things, and because no group likes to think of itself as evil, that part of Israeli history is glossed over, and the evil of their enemies is overblown.

                          Yes, there was some Arab immigration into Palestine as a result of Jewish immigration, however, in 1917, there was something like 600,000 Arabs and only 60,000-100,000 Jews, the majority of them being Sapharidic Jews, who had lived there for centuries. It would be more correct to call them Arab Jews, so there vast majority of people in Palestine were Arabs (this leaves out the Armenians, for whom I have no numbers).

                          By 1947, the populations were 1.5 million Arabs and 650,000 Jews. So, Arabs multiplied at a rate of 2.5 and Jews at a rate between 6.5 and 13. We can certainly attribute Jewish population increase to immigration, which would mean that the majority of Jews in Palestine were now of European decent. It is not as easy to say that the growth in Arab population was due to immigration, though doubtlessly this did contribute.

                          The major, noticable, change, however, would be the massive influx of Europeans into a non-European land. This is what is forgotten by all sides. What is at issue is an indigenous struggle against Euroepan colonialism which takes on an anti-Jewish character, because those immigrants were Jewish. We can see a similar struggle in every land into which Europeans flooded: the Americas, Algeria, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, China, South Africa, Kenya, India, and Israel.

                          This is only to be expected. If outsiders are coming into your country and doing well while you are not, you are going to be pissed. Why were the European Jews doing so well? Well, on the one hand they worked d*mned hard, but on the other, they were receiving the help of a lot of wealthy people in Europe. Naturally they are going to do better than people without such aid, and who also lacked the technical know how of many of the Jews who were coming in.

                          However, it is not true that Palestine was a wilderness of desert and swamps. Yes, part of the coutrny was undeveloped, just as much of the US was undeveloped in 1917. But there were olive groves and citrus groves and tended flocks of animals and some small cities.

                          Like any feudal state (which the Ottoman Empire was), much of the land was owned by absentee landlords. Farmers and herders worked lands that their families had worked for centuries, but that they did not own, just like in Russia. Unlike Western Europe, the serfs had never been freed, the land had never been redistributed, and so there is going to be some resistence when some pasty-skinned outlander shows up and kicks you off your ancestral home. Like just about every other place on the planet this has happened, the resistence eventually turned violent.

                          Mostly, however, the mess is the fault of the Brits, who promised Palestine (which at the time consisted of what is today, Israel, Palestine, and Jordan) to both the Zionist movement and the Arabs, while intending to keep it for themselves. The Arab revolt resulted in an Arab state, Syria, which contained Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon within it. It lasted over a year, when the French and Brits, having given themselves a mandate to rule these territories, invaded and carved up Syria, Iraq, and the Arabian penensula.
                          Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            che, VERY nice summation. The fact that the Arabs were responding to colonizers gets glossed over in all the debates. In settler colonies, the action and reaction is usually violent (much more than in other types of colonial setups).
                            “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                            - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Now, Faisal, the leader of the Arab reistence against the Ottomans welcomed the Jews. He wanted Jewish help in developing Syria. Jewish money and Jewish technical expertise were seen as key in making a modern Syria. When Syria was established, King Faisal extended his welcome to the Jews of Europe, but his reign was sadly brief. The Brits gave him Iraq as a consolation prize.

                              The French took the Northern part of Syria, then split it into two parts, one with a majority Christian population (Lebanon) which they thought would be easier to control and Syria. The Brits took the Southern part and called it Palestine, which they gave to Faisal's brother, Abdullah. (The Hejaz was ruled by their father, but that ended in the 20s when the Brits tacitly encouraged the Saudis to invade and annex it.) Abdullah continued his brother's policy of openness to European Jewry. His desire was to rebuild the broken parts of Syria into one united whole, and to do this he needed Jewish help. (Britain and France never came to an agreement about the exact boundry near the Sea of Galilee, which becomes important later.)

                              However, being a Jewish minority in an Arab country did not appeal to the leaders of the Zionist movement. One, white people should never be ruled by dark people. Two, they wanted to build their own country, not someone else's. Three, they didn't want to be the minority in any country. Sure, it always starts out nice, but a little while down the road they're confiscating your land and expelling you yet again.

                              Appealing to the British Empire, the Jews got their wish, sort of. Britain split Palestine in two, along the Jordan River. Now there was East and West Palestine. Prior to the partitioning, there were Jewish settlements on both sides of the Jordan. Most Jewish settlement was in and around the Sea of Galilee. After the partitioning, East Palestine was closed to Jewish settlement and West Palestine was set aside for the Jews. (At some point in the 20s the name of East Palestine was changed to Transjordan, literally, Across the Jordan, and West Palestine just became Palestine.)

                              Britain, of course, was hedging its bets. Its standard colonial practice was to support local elites, but also to set the population against different parts of itself. If they are too busy fighting each other, then they won't be busy trying to fight you. That's theory, anyways. Didn't always work that way. Get the Arabs and the Jews to fight, and you've extended your mandate in the region indefinately.

                              Now, there were two main elite families in West Palestine, the Nashishibis, who were both pro-Brit and pro-Jew and the al-Husseinis, who were anti-Brit and anti-Jew. When the Mufti of Jerusalem died, the Brits appointed an al-Husseini to the position, hoping this would buy the family off. This would be standard British colonial policy, supporting local elites and setting the population against itself. It is from this that the Jewish-Arabic feud begins.

                              The new Mufti of Jerusalem then worked up the population against the Jews. Now, this is definately an antio-Jewish act, but essentially it was anti-colonial. Jews were the colonists, so it makes sense to be anti-Jewish. Only seven years later, the Mufti lead the Arab revolt against Britain. The over all stragety was to drive the Europeans out of Palestine. Just as Tupac Amaru and Techumseh were anti-white and anti-Christian, so were the Arabs of Palestine anti-Jewish and anti-British.

                              In order to appease the Arabs, who were more clearly a danger to Brit colonialism than the Jews, they agreed to restrict immigration, which of course, pissed of the Jews. Now the Brits have both sides mad at them as well as each other. From 1936 to 1948, the Brits were in a near constant struggle against one group or the other.
                              Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                By no means do I want to minimize the danger that Jewish immigrants faced in Palestine. There were quite a number of massacres of kibbitzs and anti-Jewish riots in the larger cities. But again, I liken this to the massacres that any colonial group faces when immigrating to a country that already has inhabitants.

                                I don't blame the Indians for killing Americans (or Brits by the other Indians. ) I don't blame Algerians for killing French settlers, and so while I am disposed to be absolutely opposed to the massacring of Jews, it needs to be looked at in the context of anti-colonialsm rather than the context of anti-Semitism. Wehn you are on the recieving end of the axe, however, I think that distinction is of cold comfort.

                                In any event, like settlers the world over, the Jews created self-defense groups, ranging from the more benign (the Haganah) to the terrorist groups liek the Stern Gang and the Irgun. (Eventually, even the Haganah spawned a terrorist group, the Palmach, but that's much later.) While the Haganah concerned itself with defending the settlers from attack, the Irgun and the Stern Gang retaliated, which of course, spawned Arabic retaliation, and further Jewish retaliation, and you see where this is going and where it has gotten us, as this is the same policy Israel practices today. Hasn't worked in seventy years, but maybe it will work tomorrow.

                                From 1936 to 1939, the Arabs of Palestine revolted against British rule. It was a nasty war, and a lot of Arabs got killed and Jerusalem got bombed. But, and this is important, after 1939, Arab resistence collapsed, and didn't resurface until the UN partitioned Palestine against the will of the majority of its inhabitats!

                                From 1939 until the Brits, left, however, they faced another enemy, the Jews. Ironically, it was because the Brits wouldn't left the Jews form organized military companies to help fight the Nazis. The Brits, probably rightly, felt that after the war these militias would be a problem (and they were). The Jews formed them anyways, but rather than fighting the Nazis, they got sent off to guard India. The Jews also demanded tha Palestine be opened to Jewish refugess trying to escape the Nazis, but the Brits having just put down Arab resistence had no desire to rekindle it.

                                And so Jewish terrorists began waging war against Britain. Ironically, this makes them co-belligerents of the Nazis. However, it was the Arabs the Nazis were trying to aid when they sent agents to Palestine. Palestine was probably the only place where the Nazis met with zero success, however (cuz they got caught).

                                After the end of WWII, returning Jewish vets began to wage a war of independence against Britain. By 1947, half of all British troops in the world were stationed in Palestine, fighting the Jewish terrorists. Finally Britain had enough and wanted out. They went to the UN and said, "Come up with a solution that is acceptable to both sides." The result was the Partition Plan, which, it needs to be stated, was only a proposed solution. On its face, it fails Britain's requirements and was therefore invalid.

                                Arab reaction to the plan was a revolt. From November 1947 to March 1948, the Arabs and Jews fought it out. Many Arab communities were neutral, though that didn't always protect them (Dier Yassin and others). Jewish communities were also massacred.

                                The UN partition plan wasn't really acceptable as it was to either side. It left a ridiculously convulted Jewish state (with a significant Arab population) that was mostly Arab land. Jerusalem was supposed to be an open city. The Arabs rejected it out of hand and the Zionists accepted it, intending to modify the final boundries.
                                Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X