Am I a anti-semitist?

[Ned]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze

At the same time Evian gave support to an Arab objection that large Western nations would not inconvenience themselves with a relatively small number of refugees - whereas that refugee population was large enough to substantially alter the population and politics of Palestine. The British had little rebuttal."

S.Kroeze

As we have discussed before, the British liberated Palestine from the Turks. It was not Arab territory. It was a British Mandate.

What the Arab nations were objecting to in the 1940's was Jewish immigration into Palestine. But that was not Arab territory. There was no imposition or burden placed on any Arab state. The burden, if anything, was on the British or the inhabitants of Palestine.

It may be true that Jewish immigration into Palestine altered the demographics of the area; it did not alter it in any fundamental way. The Jews remained a decided minority throughout the war and up to 1948. The Nazi’s eliminated the problem of a large number of refugees. Had the British not placed such hard restrictions on immigration into Palestine, though, perhaps a lot more of those the Nazi’s murdered would have survived.

Today, due to their own and Arab aggression, the Palestinians find themselves under the boot of the people they tried to kill. They ask for sympathy. Poor Palestinians! This sounds just like the child asking for mercy for killing his parents because he was an orphan.

The Arab nations and the Palestinian people must agree to live in peace before the Palestinians have a right to an independent state. The Arab nations, lead by Saudi Arabia, have offered an olive branch. The primary remaining obstacle to peace, however, is the lead aggressor-terrorist, a man who no one can trust, the one and only Arafat. So long as he remains, there is no solution. Nothing he signs or agrees to can be trusted. Even by now, the EU must understand this.

The EU and the United States should stand together on this. Taking sides on the side of aggression is not the solution.

If you still doubt who the aggressor is here, think about the term "Land for Peace."

Ned

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you still doubt who the aggressor is here, think about the term "Land for Peace."

It is simple... the aggressor, without a doubt, is and has been Israel. We should beat them down as we did Iraq when they used aggression against Kuwait.

[Sirotnikov]

Imran - think of who gives land, and who gives peace.

palestinians want land
israelis want peace.

simple.

[Imran Siddiqui]

palestinians want land
israelis want peace.

Lets see... back in 1946... Jews want land, Arabs want peace .

simple.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Lets see... back in 1946... Jews want land, Arabs want peace .

simple.

I'm going to have to call a BS on this one, Imran.

[S. Kroeze]

Ned,

Do people under foreign rule have any human rights?

Until now you have consistently argued that conquered people -after all, they are just infidels, barbarians, savages etc,- have no rights at all. The conqueror can at his own discretion evict them from their land, abduct them into slavery, use them for medical experiments etc.

The fact they lost their political independence proves their inferiority and the right of the conqueror to rule!
When they protest, one should shoot them: that will teach them!

[Az]

S.Kroeze , you're another person that I'd like to share my sig with.

[Kropotkin]

Martin Luther King Jr. is wrong Dal...

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
S.Kroeze , you're another person that I'd like to share my sig with.

Dear Dalgetti,

I have no problem with your statement, but I think it would become even more convincing when you would at least try to argue your case.

I also kindly ask you to read -and I mean real reading, not skimming through- ALL my posts in this thread.
I hope you will have more respect for professional historians and truth than is generally shown on this Forum. My opponents have shown to be highly selective in their use of historical facts and tend to disregard all information that does not suit their argument.

I hope you will display more intellectual integrity!

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

Just one example that refutes Ned's last post about the preference of European Jews to migrate to Palestine:

S. Kroeze, Try for the moment to put yourself in the shoes of a European Jew in the late 30's and early 40's. You have to leave Europe. Would you prefer to go to Israel to live with your cousins, or would you prefer go to places like the United States with open and virulent anti-Semitism such as illustrated by my example?

I think you would know the preference of the average Jew, whether he or she was a Zionists or not.

"Between 1880 and 1900 more than a million Jews reached the United States. A fraction of that number, most of them with strong religious and nationalist feelings about Eretz Yisrael , immigrated to Palestine."

"The Orthodox Jewish pietists of the Old Yishuv, living on haluka, predominated in Palestine until after World War I, when Zionist-sponsored immigration created a majority of the New Yishuv. Whenever they arrived, Jewish immigrants were not met with an easy life in Palestine. Between 1881 and 1914 as many as 50,000, one of two, left Palestine for the West."

"The ultra-Orthodox community... ..rejected secular Zionism but after the riots of 1920 and 1921 did nothing to oppose it."

"In 1922 a government census recorded some 84,000 Jews in Palestine; that population doubled by 1931, bringing the New Yishuv to 175,000."
(source: T.A.Idinopulos: 'Weathered by Miracles', 1998)

The Jews did not prefer to migrate to Palestine; they were manipulated by the Zionist leadership. Some of them will have had relatives in Palestine, but there were far more Jewish relatives living in the USA.
Nor will a true refugee care about his refuge; his priority is to save his life!

[Ned]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
Ned,

Do people under foreign rule have any human rights?

Until now you have consistently argued that conquered people -after all, they are just infidels, barbarians, savages etc,- have no rights at all. The conqueror can at his own discretion evict them from their land, abduct them into slavery, use them for medical experiments etc.

The fact they lost their political independence proves their inferiority and the right of the conqueror to rule!
When they protest, one should shoot them: that will teach them!

I think the point I was making is that this war or series of wars took place in Palestine between the residents of Palestine, Arab and Jew, with outside intervention. In this regard, the area currently occuppied by the Arab-Palestinians is like the South after the American Civil War, which many in the South call, even to this day, the War of Northern Aggression.

What went on in America after the Civil War was not pretty. There was a lot of "pay back." However, whatever rights the people of the North had to live in the South was restored. A lot moved South. They were called "Carpetbaggers." Generally they moved South to acquire property cheaply. They were highly resented by Southerners.

I do not believe the Jewish settlements are "illegal." They or Israel have to pay for the land. I know the land owners of expropriated property have a right of action in Israeli courts. I know that the right has been exercised.

As to the future, there is tension between the right of Israel to annex the land into the state of Israel and the right of a people to self-determination. I believe that most Americans and most Israeli's do support that right for the Palestinians - but only after they agree to stop making war on Israel.

Ned

[Az]

Kroeze:
And I'll explain it with another quote by the same man .

And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.

; they were manipulated by the Zionist leadership

the quotes you've mentioned have no connection to the statement. and so what if Orthodox jews opposed it?

( good reasoning and all , Kropo , as always )

[Kropotkin]

But he IS wrong, antisemtism and anti-zionism is to distinctly different "anti-ideas".

And Martin Luther Kings defintiton of anti-zionism is wrong, that a people living in a land have a right to freedom is not the same as a peoples right to land that they claim as their homeland.

If I am to accept zionism I might as well accept the pals right to re-settle Israel, the american Indian peoples right to the entire continent and all kinds of more or less realistic claims.

[S. Kroeze]

As usual Ned categorically refused to answer my question!

Do people under foreign rule have any human rights?

And his comparison with the Confederate states is most far-fetched.
Just one small detail:
The Confederate states had of their own free will chosen to be part of the United States. The Arab people of the Middle East had NEVER chosen to become part of the British Empire!

And Dalgetti refused to read my previous posts.
Otherwise he would react to my position that Jews are defined by their religion. Even Natan agreed with my conclusion!
So the opinion of Orthodox Jews living in Palestine since time immemorial shouldn't be considered irrelevant.
Yet on second thoughts, were these Orthodox Jews Europeans....?

If I am to accept zionism I might as well accept the pals right to re-settle Israel, the american Indian peoples right to the entire continent and all kinds of more or less realistic claims.

Dear Kropotkin,

You forget one important detail:
Europeans ALWAYS have the right to conquer some territory outside Europe.
Europeans ALWAYS have the right to settle in another part of the world against the wish of the native population.
Europeans ALWAYS have the right to abduct non-Europeans into slavery.
Europeans ALWAYS have the right to promise an oppressed people (i.e. Arabs) self-determination without honouring this promise.
Europeans deserve democracy and self-determination, while non-Europeans do not.
European refugees deserve preferential treatment, while non-Europeans do not.
European powers have the right to restrict the immigration of refugees, while non-Europeans have NO right whatsoever!

The British had every right to rule India, Egypt, the Middle East etc. They only departed because they chose to do so, but when they desire they can re-establish their rule tomorrow....

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[Panag]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

palestinians want land
israelis want peace.

Lets see... back in 1946... Jews want land, Arabs want peace .

simple.

hi ,

of course , ............but would it not be Jews want peace in 1946-41-48-49 , .....00-01-02 , and Arabs , most of them never lived there , and have nothing to do there , ....want war , ........and if it would not be against Israel it would be sure that they would wage war against an other country , .......

have a nice day

[Az]

Jews are defined by their religion , among other things.

and since when does natan count as a voice of judgement?