Am I a anti-semitist?

[Chris 62]

Apolyton shocks me sometimes.

Before I once again deal with that nazi jerk, I will answer all the other first, in inverse order:

Braindead:

I have read most of your posts with Ethelred, and although I disagree with Ethelred on the right of Israel to exists, most of your posts made me want to puke.
The only thing you can do is insults, tell, teach, order and shout. No discussion. You're a mind terrorist.
If you want to make Israel's pov a favor, please let Natan, Eli and some others explain and discuss between adults, they are 100% more interresting than your insults.

The only way to deal with racists is by confrontation.
If you don't understand that, that's your problem.

Wrong.
Force is the base of fascism. Fasces (sp?) is the symbol of power, military force. No surprise that most fascist states are ruled by militars.
Real politik is more 'the goal justify the means'. This includes the force, but not as a base, only if necessary.
Real politik is just right policy, Force is far-right policy.

Nonsense.
No agreement ever made that didn't have force behind ever stood.
It's the main reason why the league of nations failed and UN usually does also.

If I relate this with preceeding quote, then you recognize that Palestinians are right to use force to try to have an independent palestinian state?
So you agree with the teracts?
I don't... but I'm no fascist.

As the racist likes to say, a twist of words.
Israel wasn't founded on force, it survived a defensive war.
It was founded on the principle of a homeland for the Jews in the place they came from.

So what? What's the point here?
Are you aware there wasn't even a USA till 1776?
If these people were so "oppressed", why was there no independance for them for 156 years?

A ridiculous anology.
People in the American colonies had no problem with the mother country until the 1760s.
The PLO was formed by the various groups of refugees to give them a voice in their future, but this was changed by 1967.

http://www.terrorism.com/terrorism/PLO.shtml

I know NO people with IQ > 120 who judge the validity of an argumentation by its author IQ.

I'm sure you don't.

See Hitler, Munich, Chamberlain, Stalin, non-agression pact,...
See civ2 & 3, new tech discovered: 'code of law'. Two people having a problem agree to let it solved by a third party, it will be unfair, no doubt, but it will avoid problems of never ending revenge. It works only with civilized people who both freely agree with the decision, despite the unfairness. It doesn't work indeed with barbarians who sees this as something for the 'weaks' and who need a police to force the tribunal's decision

Your problem here is making a distinction between reality and theory.
Name an area in the real world where the rule of law abides without some governing force behind it.

Those 'facts' are 100% true, you may verify.
Does it mean to you that USA did not come to Europe's help?
'Facts' is one of the principle of propaganda. Statistics are another one.

So we should all just make up things as we go along?

Insults, a favorite among others of fascists.

Spare me your cracker barrel homilies.

Something against brown eyes? I guess you prefer aryans?

The old 'turn the tables" ploy, eh?

Right, on the corpses of Palestinians would be better, from far.

I have made it clear that I believe that the Pals should have a state in the west bank and Gaza.
Part two of your "turn the tables".
Equally ineffective.

Told, told, told. Tell, teach,... re-educate you mean perhaps?
People comunicates, exchange views, conflict ideas, disagree. Fascists (strong) told, order, and they think others (weaks) must agree and obey. 'It is the law of nature'

Part three.

I lost my tenper with that facist because he kept insisting that the Jews wern't Jews, but European guests that have no rights.
But again, it seems he has garnered considerable support.

It is clear you're a fascist, but I begin to believe that you don't even realize you are, making you even more frightening.

Part four.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Wrong again. That is true of fascists. And you seem to ignore the palestinians' cries.

Part five.
And when did I do that?
Answer: Never

Moe said Pals have no rights, were alien invaders.

Nobody here named Moe, son.
Pat attention.

The very only people I have met that deny others (whatever the group: criminals, handicaped people, nigros...) to be part of human race are... fascists and racists.

I'm sure.

and I could also have quoted your insult on gay people, another favorite of fascists...

What the hell are you talking about?

[qoute]Moe, you mix up
racist and fascist,
real politik and fascisim,
Israel and Jews,
Anti-semitism and Nazism,
discussions and insults; [/quote]You couldn't be more wrong, I hope you find this Moe, BTW.
Fool.

Your only excuse would be indeed to be a teenager.
If you are not, then it is clear you are a true fascist who ignores it.

Are you his DL?
You sure post like it.

PS: I hope you do not mix up fascism and nazism at least.

An excellent to make me out a villian, and a total failure as well.
Next.

Sikander

Yea, Chris seems to have gone from barely attempting to hide his contempt for almost anyone who takes a position contrary to his own to overtly insulting people almost immediately. It's not very interesting.

I'm shocked you continence and protect such a person.
I thought you were of higher moral caliber, but it seems I was in error.
It not a mtter of disagreeing with someone, it's a matter of someone dening a people's right to exsist, calling them invaders and thieves with no rights.

S. Kroeze

I have to say, Ethelred, that I am rather disappointed that you continued reacting to these completely unfounded insults. And even when they would have some foundation, I do not think one should react to such garbage in any circumstances.
You are a good and intelligent debater, so at least to me it was a disappointment to see you sink to the same puerile level.

Completely unfounded.
I am truly amazed.
But like friend dry, you seem to be for Europe, so maybe not so surprised.

I hope you know about the possibility to 'ignore' some posters?
It is most useful and highly recommendable!

Especially if you don't want to see someone confront a racist, eh?

Had to cut this up, there was so much to answer.

[Chris 62]

Part two

Now for the main event:

I said they(jews) AND the Brits AND the League of Nations AND anyone else that was involved chose to get rid of a problem by denying UN agreed upon rights to the then present inhabitants of the land.

Once again the cirlces.
You have been shown time and again that the Jews where there for better then 3,000 years, and you insist that the Jews denied UN agreed upon rights to the inhabitants.
You refuse to accept that the Jews were there, and you DARE to say your not racist.

Jew can and do function in a number of nations. The claim made by some of the creators of Zionism that Jews are downtrodden because they are stateless simply ignores this fact. I understand the desire for a state based in Jerusalem but it simply ignores 1800 years of intervening history.

Yet no matter where they have gone, they were always outcasts and outsiders, and never lost their identity.
Pushed into gettos, and finally attempted extermination.
You say that they are not who they are.
I'm not twisting anything, that's your words.

I have said many times that I am ONLY talking about the justification for and the founding of Israel. I am not saying that Israel should be wiped out. An anti-semite is a term that referst to people that hate Jews just because they are Jewish. Claiming that it includes people that think Israel was founded unjustly is a complete denial of the real meaning of the term. That is the sole reason I even posted on this thread. I knew what I said would touch of a firestorm of self-rightous indignation but that is normal when people have accepted unjust actions and want to justify them after the fact.

Yet, you insist that the Jews are unjust, that they are guests and don't belong, but it's all cold sterile argument, is it?

It is exceedingly difficult to achieve a just peace if no one is willing to admit to the truth. Once you can accept the truth it becomes much easier to move on. The problem in the Middle East is that neither side really wants the truth. It is inconvenient and in the case of the Palestinians they don't even have a clue as to the truth as so many of them are completely uneducated. Hate has replaced reason and hate breeds hate.

That truth being that Jews are really Europeans that have no right to be there?
You said this, nothing taken out of context.

Someone must budge. How can the Palestinians do this from a position of weakness and ignorance? With Israel denying the truth its even more difficult as they are the educated and the powerfull in this.

A biased staement if ever there was one.
What "truth" is Israel denying?
Your "truth" that they are Europeans, not a nation, that they stole the land when they were guests?
You said these things, not I.
[quote]Well its a valid interpretation of the events. They were invited and they did take over.
Can you show otherwise?[ /quote]You said this, it's your quote.
I did show otherwise, but you refuse to accept it.

Attack intended to stop negotiations are not the equivalent of war either and that was the intent of the King David attack considering that the Brits were on the side of a Jewish state.

I have seen you say this a few times, that Britain supported Israel.
The truth is they did and they didn't, somewhat contridical, but true.
At times they were extremly Pro Zion, others Pro Arab, depending on the govs in power at the time.
Once of the more disgraceful Brit actions was the blocking of 100,000 holocaust survivors from coming to Israel in 47.

Carving new nations out of present states is balkinzation. What it really does is increase the power of large integrated states. I would expect this aspect of it make a lot people really paranoid.

Palestine wasn't a state, nor was the mandate in the shape that we associate with Palestine, it was quite different, it was in fact arbitary, based on no ethnic or established ancient border, so partition was both logical and practical.
The example of the Balkans doesn't apply here.
Here is a map of the plan, beware, it's very slow loading:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/maps/M0082c.gif

As can clearly be seen, the bulk of the country was dedicated to an arab state, the Jews wern't getting Jerusalem (it was to be UN administered).

To say the arabs were disenfranchised by the Jews and Europeans is claptrap, and racist to boot.

In other words, spot on discription of you.

There is nothing in that timeline that shows any sign that anyone was allowed self determination. Lots of stuff after 1948 however and only TWO items before 1948. I made it clear I am talking about the founding of Israel which was in 48. Any event after that is completely irrelevant to what I am talking about.

Since this is your favorite plank, let's look at population figures:

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

From it, we can clearly see that there were a large number of Jews in Palestine before the partition plan, far more then is generally realized.
People seem to be under the impression that they all came after WWII (this is one of your assertions), this simply isn't the case.
You often talk about pre-1948 as if the Jews ploped down from mars.
Nonsense, just like you I might add.

I don't know what the heck you are talking about in this intance. I doubt you do either. Perhaps if you actualy posted the remark I made with a bit of context so I could tell what you are ranting about this time it would help. You seem to have mixed together different things and added your own delusions to make a toxic mess.

You seem to be misquoted , or everything is always out of context.

Timelines that show territory changing hands constantly are not going to support you position.

Er, YOU said there were no Jews there, then you said there were some, then you said they were Europeans...who can keep up with your changing tides?

Carefully ignoring the fact that the European Jews that founded Israel had been out of the Middle East for 1800 years

Again, we see you deny that Jews were there all along.
You say you never said this, in fact you have several people agreeing with you.
Amazing.

Actually the Bible says it. Only it doesn't say stole. What do you think a conquest is. A gift?

I thought you made it clear you never said they stole the land?
Which is it?

I am not going to search out the details for you. Especially for you. Maybe I will guess for someone else but not YOU.

Typical of your evasions throughout this thread.

I am waiting for you show what of that showed me wrong.

What's the point?
It was done numerous times, but you don't seem to want to hear about it.

If you EVER want to actually discuss this try being specific. Try saying what in a timeline is relevant. Try showing what historical event was supposed to show some sort of error.

Just look back, and it's all there.
Let's remeber your finest quote:"I am not going to search out the details for you. Especially for you. Maybe I will guess for someone else but not YOU. "

. The lies you just told are clearly false. I didn't say those things.

Then where, oh where, did I get the quotes from?

Do you have a clue what self determination is?

Another of your favorites, the claim that nobody but you understands this.
"The principle of self-determination derives from a familiar set of doctrines, whose apparent simplicity conceals a multitude of complications. The prime starting point is presumably the eighteenth-century proposition that governments must rest upon the consent of the governed, to which the nineteenth and twentieth centuries added the assumption that, since man is a national animal, the government to which he will give his consent is one representing his own nation. For full-blown self-determination to emerge it was only necessary to secure recognition of a new principle of natural law which entitles nations to possess their own states and, as the other side of the coin, renders illegitimate states with a non-national base. As Woodrow Wilson put it, the Central Empires had been forced into political bankruptcy because they dominated "alien peoples over whom they had no natural right to rule." 1 With the aid of a little sleight of hand the original claim that individuals must consent to or contractually establish the governments ruling them is thus transmuted into the natural right of nations to determine their own statehood.

The difficulties of self-determination become most serious when the doctrine is brought down from abstraction to working reality and when an effort is made, as in the United Nations' covenants on human rights, to translate it from ethical and political precepts to binding legal norms. In the current temper of world opinion no one can in principle oppose what has come to be the almost self-evident right of peoples to dispose of their own destinies, but it is unfortunately equally impossible to formulate this right in such terms as to make it meaningfully applicable to reality. Who can say the nations nay, and yet who can say what nations are and when and how they may assert themselves?"

Maybe now it will get through your thick skull about this matter.

The right of self-determination has as yet found no stable place in the international legal structure nor has it been accepted by states as a policy to be applied consistently and across the board

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/emerson.htm

It is a rather long, but interesting discussion of the true principles of self determination, free of accusautions at either mid-east side.

I believe you subscribe to this far more biased view of self determination:

http://www.between-lines.org/archives/2001/oct/Azmi_Bishara.htm

That description was written by a Muslim, and as usual, it includes a blanket condemnation of Israel, very similar to yours.

They were guests. It wasn't their homeland. They hadn't been there for 1800 years. It was someone else home.

You swear over and over you never said this, yet here it is.

I said the Bible doesn't use the word but that the actions were that of theft by conquest.

Yet you said earlier, rather vehemitly, that you didn't say this.
Misquoted again, eh?

You mean I refuse to accept what you say.

What a reasonable and fair-minded postion.

You have ranted and lied and called me names time and again. On one single occasion you posted some links. Nothing in them contradicted me unless it was hidden. That is why you must be specific.

Every thing I said, EVERYTHING, backed by your own quotes.

. Nothing that would change my conclusion as there was nothing that showed self determination or a Jewish right to a modern state in the Middle East.

Yet another racist statement, flying in the face of tons of evidence presented.
But you claim your not a racist.

Interesting how the actual quotes don't support what you say about them.

Interesting that they do, yet you still deny it.

I didn't lie but you made delusionary comments about what I actually said.

Ha ha ha, the denile continues.

Not one single person has supported you in these delusions.

I don't publish PMs, but I have over 30 of them now, concerning you, my nazi like friend.
It seems they don't care to make their opinions public, and I'm fine with it. Although Kropotin made it quite clear in private that he is no supporter of mine.

Considering that people agree with me on that I think my judgement is correct.

I'm sure you have many like minded friends.

Yes it was an exact quote. Not once did I call anyone a thief. I said quite clearly that the they stole the land according to the Bible.

Ha ha ha, but you never said it, it was "according to the bible".
As I recall, I asked for the exact passages, and you said to read several books of the bible, starting with Deuturomimty (I know it's spelled wrong, so don't bother), in other words, yet another evasion.

Well that I wasn't worried about since I didn't make any racist remarks. You have written them for me and then lied that I said them.

Sure, you were misquoted all along.

Which is two more people than support you. You clearly think anyone that thinks different from you is a racist.

Showwing what a newbie you are here.
I don't agree with a lot of people here, yet I have many frinds, yet can count my enemies here on one hand.
Oddly enough, two of them were the first two to support you, isn't that intersesting.
Must be coincedence.

And Arabs ARE Semites.

I never said they wern't.

You simply hate without reason.

No, you won't escape, this will follow you wherever you post here.
It's true I shouldn't have cussed you out, it's contrary to the spirt of Poly, but garbage like you sometimes brings out the worst in people.

I am no racist and you are delusional in the constant lies you tell about me.

If your not, then explain, without rethoric about selfdetermination or other doges, why you refuse to accept that Jews have allways been in palestine, and have rights?
Your posts read like a Hammas poster, some of what you said is very similar to what I have read on several arab hate sites on the internet.

have only taken the mud from me and sent it back. I didn't dig up any of my own.

As usual, you sheets are clean, eh?

I am sorry the thread turned out this way. I am not responsible for the actions of Chris but I will not stand for the vile and evil things he has said about me. He has been completely reprehensible.

I expected a hot arguement and we were having one. Then the psychosis started.

I'm sorry a biggoted jerk like you ever found this place, and sorry once again that you found a level of support.
It's not surprising here, one need only read a number of threads here to see an under-current against Jews.
The ironic part is that if you had pulled this by inserting Blacks instead of Jews, they would have fallen on you as i did.

I think I swam to a level of wit and vitriol. Not quite the same as puerile but sometimes its close

And we see Adolph congratulate his cronies.

Anyway I figure its best to see what everyone is saying. I did get annoyed enough at one person that I stopped responding to his replies. I did keep pointing out his grosser errors. Mostly to annoy him.

Ha ha ha ha, man you are dense.
I recognize you for the phoney you are, and here you are rolling the credits!

Anyway I made my point. I will ignore the rest unless he actualy starts making an effort to use reason. I don't want to annoy everyone else with it. I don't actualy mind a good flame war. I like them. Good ones that is. This has been a turkey shoot though and not a good one.

Yes, you have been rather easy.
Try to put up a fight in the future, saying "I didn't do it" when your words are hanging there is rather lame.

I don't have any thing against Israel existing. Its there now and must be dealt with. In some way besides a psychotic genocidal rush to the sea by a bunch of fanatics. I was only talking about the founding of Israel which I continue to think was a bad idea all around.

I'm sure you do at that.
Cute pictures, BTW.
Done to death at poly, but cute.

I could continue, but I see you are now using the bigot's best weapon, appearing to be reasonable and rational.

It's as old as man.

You and I both know what you are.

You want to keep playing this game, I told you, it never ends, I owe that to the people who died becuase of people like you, and to the future, so that more won't follow.

[Ned]

I would urge those who believe that Israel should not have been created in 1948 to consider that it was probable that the Arabs would have denied free Jewish immigration into Palestine. This was the whole point of creating a Jewish Homeland in the first place. Even the U.S. denied Jewish immigration at the very time it was most sorely needed, just prior to WWII.

Ned

[Ethelred]

I would urge those who believe that Israel should not have been created in 1948 to consider that it was probable that the Arabs would have denied free Jewish immigration into Palestine

Well the Arabs were the majority of the population even after all the imigration even in 1948. In fact Chris has just posted a link that showed this pretty clearly despite his thinking it supported him.

Why shouldn't they keep their land for themselves?

Why do you feel the Arabs were obligated to take care of what was primarily a European problem?

Yes a terrible thing happened but why did the Arabs have to be the SOLE people involved in the solution? Large numbers of Jews came to the US after WWII. Some even came to the US from Israel after it was founded. My boss for instance. After WWII he smuggled Jews out of the Soviet Union and then fought in the war. I never did hear why he came to the US. Maybe it was his wifes idea.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ned
I would urge those who believe that Israel should not have been created in 1948 to consider that it was probable that the Arabs would have denied free Jewish immigration into Palestine. This was the whole point of creating a Jewish Homeland in the first place. Even the U.S. denied Jewish immigration at the very time it was most sorely needed, just prior to WWII.

Ned

This seems a valid argument, but the reality was a bit more complicated.
I think most will agree with me that Jews fleeing Europe would have been primarily interested in preserving their life. Where they could settle, seems of minor importance. Yet many Zionists disagreed....

"Immigration was a key to the creation of a Jewish state and, of course, a source of distress to the Arab population for that reason. Yet the flight of the Jews from Nazi persecution forcefully introduced humanitarian considerations into the conflict. Britain was strictly enforcing the immigration policy announced in the 1939 White Paper in order that Arabs recognize that Britain was not giving away Palestine to the Jews. The Jews strenuously objected. (8)

The background of this clash dated from the year before. At the 1938 international conference at Evian, France, thirty-one nations met to determine their mutual readiness to accept refugees (mostly Jewish). Neither the United States nor Britain acted honorably, each limiting immigration to only 100,000 Jews over the next three years. The tiny Dominican Republic offered as much.(!) It is true that at the time the number of potential refugees in need of rescue seemed limited to possible victims of Germany's Nuremberg Laws (about 600,000 Jews). No one guessed that nearly six million European and Polish Jews, as well as an equal number of Polish Catholics, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals and political prisoners, would be gassed, shot or starved to death. (9) In retrospect the limited international offers of rescue are painful to behold, if not morally offensive. The Evian Conference was a sorry showing.

If Evian demonstrated the parochial interests and selfishness of the civilized nations, the Zionists themselves were not free of blame. They made no outcry at Evian, wanting Jews to be settled in Palestine, not in Britain, the United States or elsewhere. (10) What Evian did support was the Zionist demand for immigration into Palestine - Palestine as the only answer to Hitler. (11) 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."

(8) The British also believed that illegal Jewish immigration into Palestine from Germany, with the consent or initiative of the Gestapo, was designed to embarrass the British with the Arabs. Britain thought that Germany could be sneaking German-Jewish intelligence agents and saboteurs into Palestine.

(9) Martin Gilbert, The Macmillan Atlas of the Holocaust (New York: Macmillan, 1982), 11. "In addition to the six million Jewish men, women and children who were murdered at least an equal number of non-Jews was also killed... ..by deliberate planned murder."

(10) The attempt at Evian to provide emigration for Jews "was in no sense congenial to the spirit of Zionism. The reason is not obscure. If the thirty-one nations had done their duty and shown hospitality to those in dire need, then the pressure on the National Home and the heightened enthusiasm of Zionism within Palestine would both have been relaxed. This was the last thing that the Zionist leaders wished for." Christopher Sykes, Crossroads to Israel (Cleveland: World Publishing, 1965), 188-9.

(11) At the height of the refugee problem during the middle of the war, when Roosevelt proposed to find a permanent solution for displaced Jews on a worldwide basis, Zionists bitterly attacked his proposal to open the doors of many nations to Jewish refugees after the war. Ernst, Morris, So Far So Good (New York: Harpers, 1948), 175

(source: B.Thomas: "How Israel Was Won",1999)

So it seems, both the British and the U.S. government were anti-Semitic, and the Zionist leadership too.

[Ned]

Ethelred, The Jews were there already in 1948 and simply wanted to create a state of their own. This is not dissimilar to the Greeks carving Greece out from the Turkish Empire in the last century. It happens with the breakup of all empires.

We can go around this block again if you want, but the "Arabs" had not governed that area for 1000 years. The Jews for 1800. There is a "premise" in your argument that that was "Arab" land, meaning the whole of Palestine automatically reverted to Arab sovereignity once the Turks left. However, since there were both Jews and Arabs there, it seems just as natural to divide it according to the actual population, particularly if the Jews did not want to live in an Arab-dominated state.

That there was an 30 year delay in actually making the division does not change the essential justice of division, particularly under the circumstances.

Best regards,

Ned

[Ned]

Kroeze, Thanks for the new information. It does seem to support why the Jews in 1948 deemed it vital that they have their own state. They could trust nobody to provide a refuge for fleeing Jews because they essentially got the cold shoulder when a refuge was needed the most.

Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, The Jews were there already in 1948 and simply wanted to create a state of their own. This is not dissimilar to the Greeks carving Greece out from the Turkish Empire in the last century. It happens with the breakup of all empires.

The Jews were mostly recent immigrants. You know that. They were still a minority as well.

This is akin to you inviting relatives to stay in an apartment you own and them deciding they own it after they hold the three out of ten floors.

We can go around this block again if you want, but the "Arabs" had not governed that area for 1000 years. The Jews for 1800.

I didn't say anything about govern did I? They were living there though for most of the 1800 years, first as christian semites and later as arab speaking Moslems. Thats a long time. Even with all the immigration they were still the majority in 1948.

There is a "premise" in your argument that that was "Arab" land, meaning the whole of Palestine automatically reverted to Arab sovereignity once the Turks left. However, since there were both Jews and Arabs there, it seems just as natural to divide it according to the actual population, particularly if the Jews did not want to live in an Arab-dominated state.

In 1922 AFTER Britain and Zionist organizations began to encourage Jewish emigration the population was still only 11% Jewish. It was Arab land. Run by foreigners.

That there was an 30 year delay in actually making the division does not change the essential justice of division, particularly under the circumstances.

What justice? The Arabs got the shaft. After years of Turkish rule they helped the Brits win WWI and then agreed to allow the Jews into what should have been their land to govern for the first time since the Ottomans took it control of it. Instead their goodwill was betrayed.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ned
Kroeze, Thanks for the new information. It does seem to support why the Jews in 1948 deemed it vital that they have their own state. They could trust nobody to provide a refuge for fleeing Jews because they essentially got the cold shoulder when a refuge was needed the most.

Ned

(11) At the height of the refugee problem during the middle of the war, when Roosevelt proposed to find a permanent solution for displaced Jews on a worldwide basis, Zionists bitterly attacked his proposal to open the doors of many nations to Jewish refugees after the war. Ernst, Morris, So Far So Good (New York: Harpers, 1948), 175

Did you read this footnote?

And this previous post?:

"When Theodor Herzl proposed the idea of a Jewish state in Der Judenstaat in 1896, the idea was rejected by most Jews in both Europe and America. Jews in Palestine were also opposed to the territorial and political goals of Zionism out of fear that Jewish immigration would disturb their good relations with both Moslem and Christian neighbors.(!)"

Who guarantees that Israel will be a safe place for the Jewish people in the long term?
The original Palestinian Jews seem to have had good foresight...
They cared about good relations.

[Ned]

Yes. I did. How does that change anything. Everyone seemed unwilling to take Jewish refugees in sufficient numbers. The Jews could only remember this in 1948 as a very good reason to have their own state. Ned

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ethelred

In 1922 AFTER Britain and Zionist organizations began to encourage Jewish emigration the population was still only 11% Jewish. It was Arab land. Run by foreigners.

Let's circle back to the Turkish Empire. Did the Turks have the right to permit Jewish immigration? Of course it did.

If you contend that it did not, we will have to discuss that next.

Great Britain succeeded to the rule of Palestine by virtue of conquest and L of N Mandate.

Did they have the right to permit Jewish immigration? If not, why not?

Does the United States have the right to permit Jewish immigration for that matter? If not, why not?

Ned

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ned
Yes. I did. How does that change anything. Everyone seemed unwilling to take Jewish refugees in sufficient numbers. The Jews could only remember this in 1948 as a very good reason to have their own state. Ned

I really have to question your reading skills.

In 1938 the tiny Dominican Republic was willing to admit 100,000 Jewish refugees.

Before WWII the Zionist leadership was not interested in saving as many Jews as possible, though they had considerable influence both in Britain and the U.S. Yet they exerted this influence exclusively for the colonization of Palestine, though ALL original Palestinians -both Jews, Christians and Muslims- didn't support this immigration.

During WWII Roosevelt tried to find a new home for Jewish refugees. Again this policy was opposed by the Zionist lobby, because they were exclusively interested in conquering Israel/Palestine.

The Zionist leadership had decades before 1948 decided to create a secular European-Jewish state and to shove the Arabs gradually aside. Partition would have been a provisional solution at most.

I pity the original Jews. Many of them fell victim to the ensuing violence.
Perhaps European and American Jews are/were superior to Palestinian Jews?

[Ned]

Originally posted by S. Kroeze


I really have to question your reading skills.

In 1938 the tiny Dominican Republic was willing to admit 100,000 Jewish refugees.

Before WWII the Zionist leadership was not interested in saving as many Jews as possible, though they had considerable influence both in Britain and the U.S. Yet they exerted this influence exclusively for the colonization of Palestine, though ALL original Palestinians -both Jews, Christians and Muslims- didn't support this immigration.

During WWII Roosevelt tried to find a new home for Jewish refugees. Again this policy was opposed by the Zionist lobby, because they were exclusively interested in conquering Israel/Palestine.

The Zionist leadership had decades before 1948 decided to create a secular European-Jewish state and to shove the Arabs gradually aside. Partition would have been a provisional solution at most.

I pity the original Jews. Many of them fell victim to the ensuing violence.
Perhaps European and American Jews are/were superior to Palestinian Jews?

I'm sorry, Kroeze, but I may have missed something here. Did or did not the balance of the world offer enough immigration to accommodate all the refugees? I think the answer is obvious. I think you are also making the point that the reason, perhaps the only reason, for the low quota numbers outside of Palestine was the Zionist movement's opposition. However, we do know that Great Britain limited Jewish immigration into Palestine from 1938 on due to the White Paper. Whatever the Zionist movement wanted it did not get in terms of unlimited immigration into Palestine.

The result was that Jews could not leave Europe because they could not get necessary papers. Some tried illegal immigration. I heard there was one ship that Roosevelt himself refused entry into the U.S. That ship returned to Europe. Its passengers were reportedly murdered by the Nazi's.

Great Britain, post WWII, denied entry of another ship into Palestine. It sank.

What more is there to say?

Ned

[Ned]

I would just like to make one more point. Ethelred and I both live in California, one of the nicest places to live on this planet. In the last 84 years, since 1918, this state has been transformed from a sleepy farming state to one of the most crowded, urbanized places in the United States due to "immigration" both from other parts of the U.S., the world and particularly from Mexico. At any moment in time, most Californians would liked to have called a halt. "Enough, already, this place is too crowded."

However, others among us would say not just "enough," but enough of "those" people. Who "those" are depends on where you are in the state and who is saying it. But, in my view, such an attitude is racist. I am very sure our court system would so conclude.

I hope this analogy helps you understand why I think the Arabs of Palestine are both wrong - and potentially racist, although I haven't gone that far yet.

Ned

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Let's circle back to the Turkish Empire. Did the Turks have the right to permit Jewish immigration? Of course it did.

Of course they did. They stole it fair and square.(courtesy of S. I. Hayakawa regarding the Panama Canal Zone).

If you contend that it did not, we will have to discuss that next.

Great Britain succeeded to the rule of Palestine by virtue of conquest and L of N Mandate.

Mandated as a adminstrators not rulers. The Middle East was NOT part of the British Empire.

Did they have the right to permit Jewish immigration? If not, why not?

Only if the local populace agreed. They didn't own it. It wasn't theirs to give away. They controlled with the cooperation of their Arab allies while they were SUPPOSED to be forming new governments. They were not supposed to deny the Arabs their rights. I cannot help it if both the mandate and the high handed Balfour Declaration was a two faced piece of duplicity.

Does the United States have the right to permit Jewish immigration for that matter? If not, why not?

Ned

Who ever said it didn't? The US is a country run by its own people. Not the case for the Middle East between 1917 and 1948. The Brits were supposed to be caretakers not a bunch of empire building conquerers in the Middle East.

What you are doing here is trying to evade the issue. The Arabs had a right to their own country. They lived there and had done so for a long time. What besides arrogance gave others the right to give away their land to what was primarily a buch of Europeans? That question INCLUDES the League of Nations not just Britain. The League was primarily controlled by France and Britain. It wasn't going to tell the Brits not to do what Britain wanted to do. France and Britain do not have the right to run roughshod over everyone just because they call themselve a League. Its not an accident the League use the Balfour Declaration as a model for the mandate. Who the heck do you think wrote the mandate? The Arabs had no representation there.