Am I a anti-semitist?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Natan
1) The offer was made by King Faisal, not "the Palestinians," who at any rate had no agreed upon representative at the time.

You're correct. My mistake. Here are some specifics I found on the offer. Apparently both King Faisal of Syria and later his brother, King Abdullah of Palestine wanted the Jews to emigrate and help build their new countries. Abdullah offered the Zionists half the parliament.

2) Many Zionists were quite interested in it

Why was it rejected then?

4) Arab nationalism was not just a response to Zionism.

I didn't say that it was. I said that it was encouraged by the break up of the Ottoman Empire.

[Natan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You're correct. My mistake. Here are some specifics I found on the offer. Apparently both King Faisal of Syria and later his brother, King Abdullah of Palestine wanted the Jews to emigrate and help build their new countries. Abdullah offered the Zionists half the parliament.

Part of the problem is that Faisal and Abdullah never had control of Palestine. Although many parts of Syria were considered to be within the boundaries of the ancient land of Israel, Zionists were never interested in them because it was the southern part which had the historic cities like Jerusalem and Safed. Faisal's reign was quite short, even in lesser Syria, his regime quickly being replaced by French occupation.

Why was it rejected then?

Who exactly rejected it?

I didn't say that it was. I said that it was encouraged by the break up of the Ottoman Empire.

Oh, my mistake. I was unsure what "this" in the second sentence reffered to.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Chris 62
How did I know that?

You didn't.

I hate a man like you more then any other.
A bigot that hides and pretends to be reasonable.

You just hate reason. I am no bigot but you just hate.

Lie a lot too.

The only thing I hate is jerks like you.

Like I said lie a lot too. I am having a mostly reasonable discusion with everyone but one hot headed short tempered foul mouthed child of Grendal.

Try not to get your arm ripped of by a troll slayer.

All jews are theives, eh?
All jews have no rights, eh?

You sure do like to lie.

Sorry Adolph, your not getting off that easy.

Well you lie just like he did. You rant much like he did but with less competence.

Unlike him you're easy. The eaiest troll I have ever come across. Except for one that I chased off in less than two hours. You are too foolish to lay off.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
I just wanted to add that Muslims conquered Palestine BY FORCE from the majority Christian population that ruled the area under the Eastern Roman Empire.

We covered that allready. The christians became moslems. I don't think they had a lot of choice.

Usually when a conquest is made the original population remains. Not always of course. The Romans went out of their way to chase off the Jews after revolts. Apparently the Assyrians were hard on the locals earlier. Islam however was not about giving land to Arabs it was about conversion. Corpses don't convert well.

This is not to claim the Moslems were nice and gentle and peacefull. They weren't. When Moslems claim that Islam is a peacefull religion they are at best exceedingly ignorant. They often converted by sword and arrow even before the Turks showed up.

[Chris 62]

Since the bigot refuses to look into history, I will do it for him, with a caviat of net history, which is uneven at best.

Let's start with events leading up to the war of independance and the partition plan:

http://apolyton.net/forums/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&threadid=48587

You will notice where it provides self determination, which that idiot refuses to accept, and that it was the arab states that refused to allow self determination, they were operating under "might makes right" doctrone, and tried to force the jews out.

The partition plan grew from the Balfour declaration, so let's look at the actual declaration and an interpretation of the events leading up to it:

http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm

The Balfour declaration:

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

Perhaps a concise timeline would help:

http://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm

Anyone glancing the net could have found all the things I said, that YOU said were "unsupported".

Only a moron would think Israel had no right to exsist and would call them "guests" in their own land, as the time line shows.

I didn't think it was needed to show such basic history, only a fool would contest it.
You did contest it.

The "new historians" have been sited by some, but they have been exposed by this book:

http://www.danielpipes.org/reviews/199709g.shtml

Here's another timeline that indicates that the jews resisted the first arab conquest, that YOU said were "nomads".

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/palestine.html

Here is a great essay from an ARAB-American journalist, exposing the bull that YOU spew:

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/myths.html

More from this journalist:

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/myths.html

Here is some nice history of Israel in ancient times, the times YOU say they "stole" the land:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook06.html

Yet more history of this area:

http://www.historyteacher.net/Arab-Israeli_Conflict.htm

The fact is, when it comes to the middle-east, you don't know your ass-from you elbow, Ethelred.

Your just another too bit bigot, a pimple on the ass of society.

Go crawl back into your corner.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Ethelred
You just hate reason. I am no bigot but you just hate.

Your a piece of sh1t racist.

Lie a lot too.

Yes, you do.

Like I said lie a lot too. I am having a mostly reasonable discusion with everyone but one hot headed short tempered foul mouthed child of Grendal.

They try to reason with a nazi like you.
I see you for what you are.

Try not to get your arm ripped of by a troll slayer.

The only troll lives in your rectum, loser.

You sure do like to lie.

Ha Ha Ha, you are such a loser.

Well you lie just like he did. You rant much like he did but with less competence.

Everybody is lieing, eh?

Unlike him you're easy. The eaiest troll I have ever come across. Except for one that I chased off in less than two hours. You are too foolish to lay off.

Ha ha ha, you think you are winning!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The people here are to polite to tell you what a d1ck you are, but I don't bother with that.

[Chris 62]

When you through finding someone to read you all that information, you can come back and tell me how I didn't substanciate anything.

Jack-ass.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Natan
1) The offer was made by King Faisal, not "the Palestinians," who at any rate had no agreed upon representative at the time.
2) Many Zionists were quite interested in it
3) The Turks had allowed Jewish immigration for a number of years
4) Arab nationalism was not just a response to Zionism. In fact, it was always stronger outside Israel/Palestine than within. Were Zionism the cause of Arab nationalism, Palestinians would be the staunchest of Arab nationalists (in fact they resent other Arabs for what they see as abandonment of the Palestinian cause), while nations further away from the area, like Iraq and Libya, would have little interest in Arab nationalism. But that it is not so.

Nathan, the discussion between Ethelred and myself was unresolved in my view because we did not agree on the reason for the 1920 riots in Jerusalem that resulted in the deaths of scores of Jews. He contended, I believe, that the reason for riots was because of the Balfour declaration and its current interpretation by the Jews that the document authorized the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. I instead cited the Army handbook for the proposition that the leaders of the Jewish resistance to riots, including Jabotinsky, began to argue after the riots that a Jewish state was necessary because coexistence with the Arabs in an Arab dominated state not possible.
Do you know the reason for the 1920 riots? You have a link to a discussion of those events?

There is one passage in the Army handbook that seems to support Ethelred's view:

From April 4 to 8, Arab rioters attacked the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem. Faysal’s ouster by the French in the summer of 1920 led to further rioting in Jaffa (contemporary Yafo) as a large number of Palestinian Arabs who had been with Faysal returned to Palestine to fight against the establishment of a Jewish nation

Ned

[CyberGnu]

chris, you really should start taking your medication again... Calm down.

[Chris 62]

Your right Cyber, I let that bigotted little pig get to me.

People like him saw 6 million jews to the gas chamber along with 5 million others.

You would think that after seeing so many stupid posts, you get used to it, but I never get used to racism.

[CyberGnu]

You are still not calm... i've read through ethelreds posts, and nothing he says supports your claim of him being a nazi. It is quite uncalled for.

[CyberGnu]

natan:
1) do you have anything supporting your claim? Sources dating from pre-1920, mind you, we're not debating the mindset AFTER the rift started.

2) ackording to the NYT, the killers shot pretty much indiscriminately into open windows and killed, amongst others, the girl.

[Natan]

Well, as I see it, Arabs were angry about the balfour declaration and some Zionists interperted it as authorizing the creation of a Jewish state, but I think the more important cause was the partition of Syria, which was causing riots against the French in their part of the Levant as well. Assigning causes for historical events is never easy though.

[CyberGnu]

Natan:
3) I really don't have the time to respond to all those points.. do you think you could pick out the three or four that you think are most important/fundamental and i'll respond to those?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
You are still not calm... i've read through ethelreds posts, and nothing he says supports your claim of him being a nazi. It is quite uncalled for.

You find it acceptable to say that Jews "stole their own land"?
That they stole it in antiquity as well?
That they have no right to self determination?
That they have no rights period?

That only scratches the surface.

Nazi is mild compared to that.