NationStates Jolt Archive

"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." - Thomas Friedman

PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING IF YOU ARE AGAINST ISRAEL

The violence in the British Mandate of Palestine against the Jews didn't start with the partition or the Haganah as the biased and ignorant anti-Israel crowd has been asserting here.

The violence against Jews in Palestine had been ongoing for centuries. Jews had been living in Jerusalem and Safed continuously for millenia. For the last few centuries, the Jews of Safed had been enduring abuse from Muslims inspired by radical clerics. The Jews of Safed were ultra-religious Kabalists who never struck back.

When the Jews began to LEGALLY return to the land after fleeing the Pales of Russia in the 1st Aliyah, they bought the land from absentee Arab landowners living elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire. They started the first kibbutzim on this land. The Arabs attacked and raided the Kibbutzim on a regular basis.

It should be noted the Jews weren't fighting back or doing anything to instigate the violence. They were there 100% legally.

The British of course made the Balfour Declaration, which was a legal promise to a Jewish state in Israel, in 1917 during WWI to reward Jewish support of the British war effort. The British of course took over the territory, which was known as Trans-Jordan. Palestine was split off as a seperate part when Britain gave most of Trans-Jordan to King Abdullah in order to create a counterbalance to the Saud family in Saudi Arabia.

In 1920, The Arabs started a series of riots. Hundreds of Jews were woudned by Arabs who started an actual pogrom against people who legally moved to the land to escape the Czar's pogroms. It was this action that led to the formation of Haganah, which was a defensive army, not an offensive one.

There was another large scale Arab riot in 1929. The riots killed hundreds of Jews and injured thousands more. The riots began because the Arabs watned the Jews to be barred from going to their holiest spot, the Western Wall. The British stood by and let this all happen. They were appeasing the Arab population and let them try to destroy the Jews. The Peel commission placed full blame on the Arabs.

In the 1930s, a new immigration wave of Jews came into the land. They were German Jews who were fleeing Hitler's Germany. The Arabs didn't want these Jews to come into the land. As a result, they began an uprising that lasted from 1936-1939. Britain appeased the Arabs once again and turned dozens of large ships around sending them back to Germany. Britain and the Arabs had a huge part in condemning 6 million of my people to death.

The 1930's uprising led to the Peel Commission to recommend partition of the Palestinian Mandate. They recommended this Arab biased partition which gave the Jews a small portion of what they were asking for. The Jews accepted this compromise. The Arabs rejected it and turned towards more violence. (Had they accepted it, the 1947 partition wouldn't be necessary and there would be peace.)

http://www.pnic.gov.ps/arabic/geography/maps/map14.jpg

WWII broke out. The Arabs supported the Nazis. The leader of the Palestinians, Ij Amin Al-Husseini, fled to Nazi Germany and was a guest of Hitler. He advised Eichman and other SS officers on how to best execute the Jews. Al-Husseini had plans to do the same to the Jews in Palestine if and when Britain surrrendered. He also was the man most responsible for the 3 past riots over the preceding 2 decades.

The Palestinians and other Arabs treated the Germans as liberaters. They threw the Germans a parade as they marched into Cairo. The Jews on the other hand had the Haganah join forces with the British army to fight Viche French forces in Lebanon and on other battlefields they were needed. The Jews paid a heavy price and were largely responsible for the UK being able to hold the vital Suez Canal throughout the course of the war.

After the war, the UK continued to support the Palestinians and appease them. They forgave AL-Husseini and insured he was brought back to put down the Jews and hopefully keep them from getting a state. They did this despite the fact the Jews had paid a heavy price to help the British in the war.

In 1947, the UNSCOP did an assessment of the situation. They came to the conclusion that partition was the only viable option. The UN voted 33-13 on partition. 11 of the 13 votes were Arab states so of the non-Arab states, the vote was an astounding 33-2.

The partition may have seemed unfair to the Arabs. I know people have been waving a map aroudn shwoing where settlements were and what the Jews got. It looks like the Jews got the sweet end. While the Northern and Western parts the Jews got were where their settlements were. The map leads one to assume the Jews got land where the Arabs were the majority. The fact is that if one knew the settlement of the Negev at the time, they would know it was completely deserted. There were no Jewish or Arab settlements there. If one ignores the Negev, you will see the land distribution was logical given population numbers.

The Jews did have some Arabs within their given territories. They invited the Arabs to stay on the land. The Arabs never accepted the partiion in the first place. They declared war on the Jews. The Mufti returned to lead the Arab armies in a quest to "throw the Jews into the sea" as he himself put it. This war wasn't about the land. It was about Muslims wanting to finish Hitler's work.

King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia said this:"There are 50,000,000 Arabs. What does it matter if we lose 10,000,000 to kill all the Jews. The price is worth it."

AL Husseini said "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers. Murder the Jews! Murder them all!"

This is the mentality the Jews were up against. They weren't fighting for their land. They were fighting for their right to live.

The Jews of course won the War of Liberation. Yes some Arabs were misplaced. Most by choice either because they didn't want to live under Jewish rule, or because they were asked by Arab leaders and expected to return after the swift Arab victory their leaders promised.

Some were forced out during the war, it was tragic, but a higher number of Jews were kicked out by Arab countries like Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen in the aftermath of the war. Israel absorbed these people on a very small tract of land while the Arabs refused to accept their own on over 100 times the amount of land given to the Jews.

As usual, I totally agree with you and with this article...but then again, its not me this article is aimed at...

To this day I have not figured out where people get the insipiration to side with the arabs against the Jews.

I'm gonna find a couple good 'rab anti Jewish/anti Israelis quotes for this thread....Hold on.

Shouldnt take long, theres only like 39438439 bagillion.

well it isn't an article. I wrote this myself based on the history I've studied.

My post still stands.

I should note that AL-Husseini was the mentor for Yassir Arafat. He handpicked Arafat to lead the Trans-Jordanians who for somereason call themselves Palestinians.

I never said I "side with the arabs" - I just said that I don't think that Israel has a moral or ethical right to being where they are. I'm not saying anyone else is better or worse, especially the arabs.

I never said I "side with the arabs" - I just said that I don't think that Israel has a moral or ethical right to being where they are. I'm not saying anyone else is better or worse, especially the arabs.
You're right, they don't have a right for those reasons. They have a right because they LEGALLY bought those lands from absentee landowners, made barren land grow, and then built cities atop it. They deserve the land because they bought and redeemed it.

I know the history of the area and I know that without Israel’s existence, the people of the United States and the rest of the western world would be far less hated. Israel creates conflict after conflict and uses holocaust gilt to goad much of the Western world into siding with them, thus, making us a target for terrorists.

If any nation attacked Israel, I would support them. If that makes me anti-Semitic, then I’m anti-Semetic.

You're right, they don't have a right for those reasons. They have a right because they LEGALLY bought those lands from absentee landowners, made barren land grow, and then built cities atop it. They deserve the land because they bought and redeemed it.

The fact that some Jewish people may have a legal right to land which they bought does not neccesarilly entail that the state of Israel has a right.

"Want to go to America? The Puritans are going. They say they can escape religious persecution there. And religiously persecute the natives instead. Wanna go?" -Jew

"Puritans? Bah! What do they know?" -Another Jew

See? None of this would've happened if you had just moved to New Jersey instead. :p

I know the history of the area and I know that without Israel’s existence, the people of the United States and the rest of the western world would be far less hated. Israel creates conflict after conflict and uses holocaust gilt to goad much of the Western world into siding with them, thus, making us a target for terrorists.

If any nation attacked Israel, I would support them. If that makes me anti-Semitic, then I’m anti-Semetic.
AMEN, A freakin MEN! that was phrased perfectly, my thoughts exactly

I know the history of the area and I know that without Israel’s existence, the people of the United States and the rest of the western world would be far less hated. Israel creates conflict after conflict and uses holocaust gilt to goad much of the Western world into siding with them, thus, making us a target for terrorists.

If any nation attacked Israel, I would support them. If that makes me anti-Semitic, then I’m anti-Semetic.
WHat has Israel done to create that hatred? They have fought wars, but they were hated before the wars because they were Jews. Israel has had to fight defensive wars since before they were a nation. It's not Israel's fault that the Muslims are so blinded by the shit fed to them by their clerics. You basically are advising appeasement and selling the Jews out to the Arabs. Congratulations. YOu have the same mindset of the Brits who let the Nazis kill the Jews. You really are a scum bag and a self centered asshole. And yes you are anti-semitic. I'm surprised you don't go up to the Aryan Nation meetings in Idaho and join your fellow scum.

The fact that some Jewish people may have a legal right to land which they bought does not neccesarilly entail that the state of Israel has a right.
Fine Israel has to exist because it is the only way those Jews don't get exterminated. If they were under 1 state, they would be under the Mufti who tried on multiple occasions to kill every Jew he could. You are really foolish and need to learn that this is the real world.

And yes you are anti-semitic.

Anti-Israeli != anti-semitic.

Fine Israel has to exist because it is the only way those Jews don't get exterminated. If they were under 1 state, they would be under the Mufti who tried on multiple occasions to kill every Jew he could. You are really foolish and need to learn that this is the real world.

True or false: no one forced those Jewish landowners to buy those plots of land.

Explain to me what I said there which fell into the 'foolish' category, would you?

AMEN, A freakin MEN! that was phrased perfectly, my thoughts exactly
I can see why you are the most disliked poster here. You would be good buddies with Adolph.

Explain to me what I said there which fell into the 'foolish' category, would you?
You are foolish to think that the Jews could live peacefully under Arab rule. The Arabs would kill them for no other reason than their religion. You don't know the history obviously. If you did, you would see the history of Jews under Arab rule.

Anti-Israeli != anti-semitic.
"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." - Thomas Friedman

You are foolish to think that the Jews could live peacefully under Arab rule. The Arabs would kill them for no other reason than their religion. You don't know the history obviously. If you did, you would see the history of Jews under Arab rule.


Did I mention anything about anybody living peacefully? Don't think so. You are reading far far too much into my statements.

Who forced those Jews to buy those plots of land in that region?

Who forced those Jews to buy those plots of land in that region?
They bought the land legally and had the right to defend themselves.

Oh and BTW. They have a right to a state because of the Balfour Declaration, which was later affirmed by the Peel Commission and the UN which you hold so dear.

If it'll make you feel better, if Israel were run by and mostly populated with hindus and they acted as Israel does now, I'd have as little sympathy for them as if they were jewish.

Interpret that as you will. :)

"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." - Thomas Friedman


That quote may sound all very well, but it contains no argument to convince anyone: it is just an unsupported assertion.


So on this basis (not that I am drawing any comparison between Apartheid South Africa and Israel, other than in connection to sanctions) - was the singling out of South Africa for opprobrium and international sanction anti-white?

So on this basis (not that I am drawing any comparison between Apartheid South Africa and Israel, other than in connection to sanctions) - was the singling out of South Africa for opprobrium and international sanction anti-white?
No, because when compared to others they were the worse. There is no way you can argue Israel is worse than Iran or Saudi Arabia.

I'd have alot more sympathy for Israel if they would stop oppressing and murdering Palestinians, locking them up in poor, dirty overcrowded refugee camps, giving extremists a reason to stir up anger and cause suicide attacks. It would be nice if Jewish extremists who hate Muslims would stop declaring how the Bible gives them the right to take land that the Palestinians are on and violating international law by expanding settlements in the West Bank.

Perhaps if Israel would try to at least make life for the Palestinians easier then they would experience less suicide bombings. People who have a decent home, a full belly and money in their pocket are less likely to have any incentive to blow themselves up and murder Israeli civlians.

They bought the land legally and had the right to defend themselves.

Oh and BTW. They have a right to a state because of the Balfour Declaration, which was later affirmed by the Peel Commission and the UN which you hold so dear.

That is a legal right, but it is not necessarilly an ethical or moral one.

At what point have I ever stated that I hold the UN dear? I think you may have confused me with some other poster.

WHat has Israel done to create that hatred?
I don't know. Annexing other nation’s territory comes to mind. Claiming ownership to an international city also rings a bell.
You basically are advising appeasement and selling the Jews out to the Arabs. Congratulations.
Appeasement truly is wonderful isn’t it? No blood on my hands and no money from my pocket. Feels good.
YOu have the same mindset of the Brits who let the Nazis kill the Jews.
How dare you compare me to them! They sucked at appeasement. If you’re going to appease, you have to follow through. Not letting them have Poland, bunch of quitters.
You really are a scum bag and a self centered asshole.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being self-centered. Ourselves are all we have.
And yes you are anti-semitic.
Funny then, how I don’t seem to have a problem with the Jews who aren’t pressing us to war.
I'm surprised you don't go up to the Aryan Nation meetings in Idaho and join your fellow scum.
Please, racism has nothing to do with this.

Is this a trick, or was a serious debate sought?
Aha! A clue!
PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING IF YOU ARE AGAINST ISRAEL
It is a pity, because I had some remarks, but since I am not "against Israel" I shall refrain from commenting upon the errors present in your text, nor post anything further in this thread. Maybe next time though...

WHat has Israel done to create that hatred?
Besides routinely violating the basic human rights of Palestinians and defying the international community on far more than one issue, not alot. Oh wait... I forgot the whole stealing land, illegal occupation, settlements, and wall thing. yeah, I have know idea why no one besides the US likes them:rolleyes:

It's not Israel's fault that the Muslims are so blinded by the shit fed to them by their clerics.
You whine about anti-semitism while being obviously anti- Arab and anti- Muslim. Im sure your one of those people who would love to see all Arabs killed off

You basically are advising appeasement and selling the Jews out to the Arabs. Congratulations. YOu have the same mindset of the Brits who let the Nazis kill the Jews. You really are a scum bag and a self centered asshole. And yes you are anti-semitic. I'm surprised you don't go up to the Aryan Nation meetings in Idaho and join your fellow scum.
1. Majoring flaming, wow. 2. shut the fuck up about anti-semitism just because people disagree with Israels policies. They cant do whatever evil they like and then when people call them on it, yell anti- semitic or holocaust. Its very old and very childish.
3. If believing in defending human rights and justice is anti-semetic or being a Nazi then fine Im fucking Nazi and Im happy the holocaust happened. Hilter should have finished the job and I would have helped him:rolleyes:

No, because when compared to others they were the worse. There is no way you can argue Israel is worse than Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Seeing as how Iran is on the receiving end of just a touch of international criticism these days, does that mean that you are more prepared to accept criticism of Israel?

I can see why you are the most disliked poster here. You would be good buddies with Adolph.
I am hilter:rolleyes:

YOu have the same mindset of the Brits who let the Nazis kill the Jews.

At what point did the Brits ever let the Nazis kill the Jews?

So on this basis (not that I am drawing any comparison between Apartheid South Africa and Israel, other than in connection to sanctions) - was the singling out of South Africa for opprobrium and international sanction anti-white?
Of course, if you dont support white oppression over all other people then your obviously anti-white and are a bad person. [mind of Israeli supporter/]

I'd have alot more sympathy for Israel if they would stop oppressing and murdering Palestinians, locking them up in poor, dirty overcrowded refugee camps, giving extremists a reason to stir up anger and cause suicide attacks. It would be nice if Jewish extremists who hate Muslims would stop declaring how the Bible gives them the right to take land that the Palestinians are on and violating international law by expanding settlements in the West Bank.

Perhaps if Israel would try to at least make life for the Palestinians easier then they would experience less suicide bombings. People who have a decent home, a full belly and money in their pocket are less likely to have any incentive to blow themselves up and murder Israeli civlians.
How did the Israelis lock them up in those camps. They put themselves there or were put there by Arab leaders in Syria and Jordan as political pawns. You fail to note most of them left their homes on their own free will. Oh and if the Jews truly want to carry out acts of genocide as you imply, the Palestinians would be dead within 48 hours. Israel goes out of its way to avoid civilian deaths.

I love how you point out "Jewish Extremists" who are a small minority among Israelis. You don't mention the fact that the Muslim extremists who seem to be in the majority don't believe in the right of the Jews to live. You just proved Friedman's quote right. You go out of your way to condemn Jews but don't say a thing about the Muslims who are worse by comparison in terms of their acitons. I don't condone the Jewish extremists. I say we have a right to Israel based on legal documents, proven history, and the work done by the Jews to redeem the barren land and make it yield vasts crops.

Israel will have to deal with terrorism no matter what because of the hate held by the Palestinians. I don't mean the people. I mean the clerics. The clerics then brainwash the people and make them believe their crap. That is the cause of the violence.

At what point did the Brits ever let the Nazis kill the Jews?
When they closed the borders to appeace the Mufti cutting off the way of escape the Jews were using.

When they closed the borders to appeace the Mufti cutting off the way of escape the Jews were using.

More context, please. Where and when?

How about both sides realize that they both SCREWED THE FUCK UP instead of going back and forth with the damn blame game? I mean seriously what does all this anti Israeli and palestinian stuff do? Its certainly not helping.

I advocate nuking the whole area into a gigantic glass plate. Then let them fight over it. It's a shithole. There are better places to fight over!

How about both sides realize that they both SCREWED THE FUCK UP instead of going back and forth with the damn blame game? I mean seriously what does all this anti Israeli and palestinian stuff do? Its certainly not helping.
Actually I think bringing to light the crimes of the Israeli state helps alot to bring about one day having what they do stop

How did the Israelis lock them up in those camps. They put themselves there or were put there by Arab leaders in Syria and Jordan as political pawns. You fail to note most of them left their homes on their own free will. Oh and if the Jews truly want to carry out acts of genocide as you imply, the Palestinians would be dead within 48 hours. Israel goes out of its way to avoid civilian deaths.

Many did leave in the wars but the fact is that Israel does nothing to improve the situation of the people there, simply let them rot there. Never mind it being horrid on a human standard but poverty and oppression is what breeds terrorists. Helping the Palestinians improve would be in Israel's best interest.

I love how you point out "Jewish Extremists" who are a small minority among Israelis. You don't mention the fact that the Muslim extremists who seem to be in the majority don't believe in the right of the Jews to live. You just proved Friedman's quote right. You go out of your way to condemn Jews but don't say a thing about the Muslims who are worse by comparison in terms of their acitons. I don't condone the Jewish extremists. I say we have a right to Israel based on legal documents, proven history, and the work done by the Jews to redeem the barren land and make it yield vasts crops.

Yes Muslims have done plenty of terrorism and there is no excuse for that. It is because of this that Israel overreacts with its use of force against Palestinian terrorists. Firings missles into crowded areas or bringing tanks into refugee camps is not going to swat terrorists and only angers the people living there. Muslim extremists are the main problem but when Israel reacts the way it does it only gives those extremists ammunition to use against the Jews. Yet another reason to give the Palestinians aid to improve them so that those Muslims won't be able to use Jewish oppressiveness against Palestinians.

Israel will have to deal with terrorism no matter what because of the hate held by the Palestinians. I don't mean the people. I mean the clerics. The clerics then brainwash the people and make them believe their crap. That is the cause of the violence.

As said above the best way to end that is to give the Palestinians more than poverty and hopelessness. Isn't it true that the territories are among the most crowded and poor? Israel should do something for those people since they have taken it upon themselves to occupy the land they sit on.

Fine Israel has to exist because it is the only way those Jews don't get exterminated. If they were under 1 state, they would be under the Mufti who tried on multiple occasions to kill every Jew he could. You are really foolish and need to learn that this is the real world.

Untrue. They wouldn't be exterminated if they lived anywhere other than where they are right now, save for a few dying because of stupid anti-semites.

Actually I think bringing to light the crimes of the Israeli state helps alot to bring about one day having what they do stop

And then once your done with that what happens? You think its going to magically make the state disapear? What when Israel turns around and does the same thing with the palestinian government? I understand the need to try to get justice plays a big role in this but what will it do in the end if other action isn't taken with it? It does nothing if some sort of peaceful resolution to end the problem is not pursued.

The Palestinians and other Arabs treated the Germans as liberaters. They threw the Germans a parade as they marched into Cairo.
I don't think this takes much away from your comment (although I'm not too sure what you're aiming for here)...but the Germans never got even close to Cairo.

You're right, they don't have a right for those reasons. They have a right because they LEGALLY bought those lands from absentee landowners, made barren land grow, and then built cities atop it. They deserve the land because they bought and redeemed it.

Thank you for this article and this statement. I agree with you 100%. In fact, I've said the exact same things in part in previous posts. It seems that uninformed people believe that Jews raided some area called "Palestine", stole the land, etc. But what you stated is correct. The Jews obtained the land legally, via the absentee landowners, the Balfour Declaration, and from the British Mandate. Jews never stole a single acre of land during the formation of the State of Israel, but obtained it legally. Nor was it founded upon a solely religious claim from the Torah, but from the secular legal procedures mentioned above. And considering a place called Palestine didn't exist, nor did a people that called themselves Palestenians, they sure didn't steal it from this group that emerged later.

I don't think this takes much away from your comment (although I'm not too sure what you're aiming for here)...but the Germans never got even close to Cairo.

True, but your also right that it doesnt take away from his comment, which would be that the a-rabs were strong supporters of the Nazis and their anti-semitism....

For proof just check the arab newspapers, they are still filled with nazi propaganda against the Jews.

My of my, IDF must be leaning on the "You're as bad as Hitler" button tonight.

My of my, IDF must be leaning on the "You're as bad as Hitler" button tonight.
He has to, to get his message across to the ones blinded by their love of the arabs and their hate of the Israelis.

He has to, to get his message across to the ones blinded by their love of the arabs and their hate of the Israelis.
Sorry about that...needed to let off some steam...

It's just as that everyone is sounding like the people they oppose.

Yes, by stretching an asshole across a room, one can see the truth. You sound just as bad as the one's you're criticizing.

And thats ok because thats your opinion.

I'm just stating the reason, thats all.

He has to post like that to get to ....some people....

Sorry about that...needed to let off some steam...

It's just as that everyone is sounding like the people they oppose.

Ah...you editied your post...so I have to put another reply.

Dont worry, I totally understand where your coming from, I'm just saying that sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

And thats ok because thats your opinion.

I'm just stating the reason, thats all.

He has to post like that to get to ....some people....
Do you really think calling people who oppose Israelis violations of human rights and international will, Nazis and Hilter is really going get them to agree with your POV?

True, but your also right that it doesnt take away from his comment, which would be that the a-rabs were strong supporters of the Nazis and their anti-semitism....
Please, if you do respect me like you say you do...just say "arab". One word. Four letters.
It annoys me to no end.

For proof just check the arab newspapers, they are still filled with nazi propaganda against the Jews.
To be fair though, if all he wanted was to do that, he could have referred us to one of his earlier threads (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467727), or simply this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni).

Do you really think calling people who oppose Israelis violations of human rights and international will, Nazis and Hilter is really going get them to agree with your POV?

Depends if the shoe fits.

For Undelia...it happens to fit snuggley.

He stated that he didnt care that holocaust happend and thought that America should not have cared about the holocaust and tried to stop it, because it would waste our tax dollars.

So anything IDF wants to call that fucking bastard, I will willingly agree with.

Guys like that sorta make me wish they were "undesirable" 60 years ago....

He has to, to get his message across to the ones blinded by their love of the arabs and their hate of the Israelis.

I for one am sick of the entire mess, both sides are doing things that are morally wrong so until one side cleans up its act so it can truly claim the moral high ground then as far as I'm concerned they can continue killing each other since they both seem to want to do nothing else.

By giving money to the Israeli government, the Western Nations keep it alive. By keeping Israel alive, we distract Islamic terrorists from blowing up westerners. Our governments are paying for a meat-shield against potential terrorists.

Sounds good to me.

Please, if you do respect me like you say you do...just say "arab". One word. Four letters.
It annoys me to no end.

Ok.

To be fair though, if all he wanted was to do that, he could have referred us to one of his earlier threads (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467727), or simply this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni).

Yes, he could of. But I seriously think thats what he was going for...lets ask him, IDF is this what you were going for?

Depends if the shoe fits.

For Undelia...it happens to fit snuggley.

He stated that he didnt care that holocaust happend and thought that America should not have cared about the holocaust and tried to stop it, because it would waste our tax dollars.

So anything IDF wants to call that fucking bastard, I will willingly agree with.

Guys like that sorta make me wish they were "undesirable" 60 years ago....
The US didnt really care about the holocaust, if they did they wouldn't have turned away the boats full of jews. They also would have bombed the railroad tracks that brought jews to the camps. That said it was the right move because taking such action would have diverted money and resources to something that had little do to with winning the war.

The holocaust was a bad thing to happen simply because it helped lead to the illegal state of "Israel"

He stated that he didnt care that holocaust happend and thought that America should not have cared about the holocaust and tried to stop it, because it would waste our tax dollars.
That doesn't mean though that he agrees with the Holocaust.

Undelia's a special case because he's taken to a radical individualist, sorta objectivist but not quite philosophy. As such, it makes sense to say that the Holocaust was none of his business and thus should not be something his tax dollars go to, either way.

I for one am sick of the entire mess, both sides are doing things that are morally wrong so until one side cleans up its act so it can truly claim the moral high ground then as far as I'm concerned they can continue killing each other since they both seem to want to do nothing else.

Such a great stance to take on the issue. They've both screwed up so screw them. Yea thats really going to get something done over there. :rolleyes:

The US didnt really care about the holocaust, if they did they wouldn't have turned away the boats full of jews. They also would have bombed the railroad tracks that brought jews to the camps. That said it was the right move because taking such action would have diverted money and resources to something that had little do to with winning the war.

Doesnt matter, arnt you glad the holocaust was stopped?

The holocaust was a bad thing to happen simply because it helped lead to the illegal state of "Israel"

Are you joking? The deaths of millions for no reason means nothing to you?

Jews and non Jews, Germans and Russians, Communists and Anti Nazis, all those lives that were stolen mean nothing to you?

Such a great stance to take on the issue. They've both screwed up so screw them. Yea thats really going to get something done over there. :rolleyes:

I posted previously that the Israelis should help the Palestinians get out of poverty to give them something else than martyrdom. It won't happen though just like Muslim extremists like killing Jews since that is what they are taught and since they are angry for their own pathetic lives. Since both sides will do nothing why should I sympathize with the situation? If they decide to actively work for peace while a few continue to attack then I will change my feelings. This never happens, peace attempts occur, they always fall apart or what is signed is competely worthless. Who knows if they will ever decided to try something other then brute force?

That doesn't mean though that he agrees with the Holocaust.

Undelia's a special case because he's taken to a radical individualist, sorta objectivist but not quite philosophy. As such, it makes sense to say that the Holocaust was none of his business and thus should not be something his tax dollars go to, either way.

Ok, but in the end do you agree with his statement that, he doesnt care that the holocaust was going on and he doesnt think it should have been stopped.

Also, heres another one:

The holocaust was a bad thing to happen simply because it helped lead to the illegal state of "Israel"

Do you agree with this?

How can you side with people like this, as a German and as a human being, not too mention an intellegent one?

I know you have your issues with Israel...and thats fine, but sticking up for people like this is under you, and you know it.

I posted previously that the Israelis should help the Palestinians get out of poverty to give them something else than martyrdom. It won't happen though just like Muslim extremists like killing Jews since that is what they are taught and since they are angry for their own pathetic lives. Since both sides will do nothing why should I sympathize with the situation? If they decide to actively work for peace while a few continue to attack then I will change my feelings. This never happens, peace attempts occur, they always fall apart or what is signed is competely worthless. Who knows if they will ever decided to try something other then brute force?

Well just to add to this if Israelis should help Palestinians out of poverty what are the Israelis going to reap from it? I mean if they do that and still get suicide bombed and attacked your going to instill alot of anger in the Israelis and who knows perhaps some Palestinians will resent having to get bailed out of their situation by the Israelis.

And on the subject of if both sides do nothing well its not that they've done nothing its just that they've both done things and some of its been steps towards peace some of its been steps away from peace. To say ah to hell with it is just really a bad mindset to take. Its like saying all the African countries get into genocidal conflicts at some point or another so screw Darfur. Its a bad mindset to take.

Doesnt matter, arnt you glad the holocaust was stopped?
I would have been happier if it never started. Stopping it when they did kept some Jews alive, leaving them looking "persecuted" and much the world had pity on them. This gave them an excuse to create the jewish state


Are you joking? The deaths of millions for no reason means nothing to you?

Jews and non Jews, Germans and Russians, Communists and Anti Nazis, all those lives that were stolen mean nothing to you?
Im not joking, I did say it was a bad thing afterall

Do you agree with this?
No, not really.

But then, I don't think there has ever been anything in which I really agreed with UNA...:D

How can you side with people like this, as a German and as a human being, not too mention an intellegent one?
I was just talking about Undelia though. You shouldn't put him in the same category. He says some outrageous things these days (when he first started he was a Bushevik neocon :p ), but there is a logic behind it.

And on the subject of if both sides do nothing well its not that they've done nothing its just that they've both done things and some of its been steps towards peace some of its been steps away from peace. To say ah to hell with it is just really a bad mindset to take. Its like saying all the African countries get into genocidal conflicts at some point or another so screw Darfur. Its a bad mindset to take.

I am not that knowledgable on the African conflicts. I can guess though that all sides use brutal methods, that it would be hard to find the presence of those who could wear the white hat. How would people make peace anywhere in the world? In the end it comes down to those involved and no peace plans by any U.S. president or anyone else will matter if compromises will not be made by those it concerns. Both Jews and Palestinians have demands that neither side will ever agree to. If they won't budge then I can't see how peace is what they are aiming for.

No, not really.

But then, I don't think there has ever been anything in which I really agreed with UNA...:D

Lol...ok, just making sure:p

I was just talking about Undelia though. You shouldn't put him in the same category. He says some outrageous things these days (when he first started he was a Bushevik neocon :p ), but there is a logic behind it.

Fair enough, but some of the stuff he says puts his logic way beyond me.

Stating that he would blindly support any country as long as they declared war on Israel.

Stating that the holocaust should not have been stopped.

I cant help but think that stormfront has a user-name just waiting for him.

I am not that knowledgable on the African conflicts. I can guess though that all sides use brutal methods, that it would be hard to find the presence of those who could wear the white hat. How would people make peace anywhere in the world? In the end it comes down to those involved and no peace plans by any U.S. president or anyone else will matter if compromises will not be made by those it concerns. Both Jews and Palestinians have demands that neither side will ever agree to. If they won't budge then I can't see how peace is what they are aiming for.

See here is the thing Utracia peace is made through a few situations. In the case of something like Rwanda your going to have a civil war and one side is going to win and the other will lose and terms will be set. The flip side of that coin is if the international community gives a damn then they are going to try to do some sort of mediation in there and have talks.

Now on the Israelis and Palestinians demands I agree that both sides tend to draw a line in the sand and say thats as far as it goes and it screws shit up. Until one or both sides are willing to truely give up something and let the other side gain in some respects the shit will keep hitting the fan. Which is why its so important to continue talks and try to get some outside perspectives on it.

I would have been happier if it never started. Stopping it when they did kept some Jews alive, leaving them looking "persecuted" and much the world had pity on them. This gave them an excuse to create the jewish state



Im not joking, I did say it was a bad thing afterall

Everyone would have been happier if it never had gotten started, but since it did get started, are you glad be stopped it, or do you think we should have let it continue.

Yes but you said that the only reason it was bad was simply because it allowed for the state of Israel, not for the murder of countless innocents.

Fair enough, but some of the stuff he says puts his logic way beyond me.
I consider that to be a somewhat significant accomplishment.
Stating that he would blindly support any country as long as they declared war on Israel.
I would support their war on Israel. A country’s going to have to do a lot more than that to get my blind support.
Stating that the holocaust should not have been stopped.
It should not have been stopped by American blood and money, by trading one life for another.
I would have been perfectly happy if the German people or one of the country’s they invade would have stopped it themselves, which Russia would have done and did do.
I cant help but think that stormfront has a user-name just waiting for him.
Please. Fascism is not only oppressive it rarely is even efficient.

I consider that to be a somewhat significant accomplishment.

I would support their war on Israel. A country’s going to have to do a lot more than that to get my blind support.

It should not have been stopped by American blood and money, by trading one life for another.
I would have been perfectly happy if the German people or one of the country’s they invade would have stopped it themselves, which Russia would have done and did do.

Please. Fascism is not only oppressive it rarely is even efficient.

Not everyone on storm front is there for fascist reasons...some are there to bitch about Jews.

See here is the thing Utracia peace is made through a few situations. In the case of something like Rwanda your going to have a civil war and one side is going to win and the other will lose and terms will be set. The flip side of that coin is if the international community gives a damn then they are going to try to do some sort of mediation in there and have talks.

Now on the Israelis and Palestinians demands I agree that both sides tend to draw a line in the sand and say thats as far as it goes and it screws shit up. Until one or both sides are willing to truely give up something and let the other side gain in some respects the shit will keep hitting the fan. Which is why its so important to continue talks and try to get some outside perspectives on it.

I agree that Rwanda is a stain on the world and the fact that the world just stood by and watched doing nothing, debating on what exactly genocide is, was a disgusting part of history. They were only Africans right? Who cares if they kill each other like that? :mad:

With Israel and Palestine one side is not just slaughtering the other. Both sides are in the wrong in my mind. I will concede that we should not just give up but should continue to make suggestions and offer help to mediate no matter how many times they disappoint and aggravate us with thier stupidity and arrogance. They slap our hand away we offer it yet again. That does not mean though that I personally have any hope in a resolution. There will always be conflict and I cannot see some happy scenario wher Jews and Muslims stop hating each other.

It should not have been stopped by American blood and money, by trading one life for another.
I would have been perfectly happy if the German people or one of the country’s they invade would have stopped it themselves, which Russia would have done and did do.

And if we did nothing and the Russians didn't stop the Germans from killing all the Jews what then? The Jews just died and tough shit?
I agree that Rwanda is a stain on the world and the fact that the world just stood by and watched doing nothing, debating on what exactly genocide is, was a disgusting part of history. They were only Africans right? Who cares if they kill each other like that? :mad:

And Rwanda is what happens when you take a stance of non interference in a situation like that. If you think Rwanda is a stain on the world then there is no logical way you can say well we shouldn't have helped the Jews and the Russians needed to take care of the Germans.

With Israel and Palestine one side is not just slaughtering the other. Both sides are in the wrong in my mind. I will concede that we should not just give up but should continue to make suggestions and offer help to mediate no matter how many times they disappoint and aggravate us with thier stupidity and arrogance. They slap our hand away we offer it yet again. That does not mean though that I personally have any hope in a resolution. There will always be conflict and I cannot see some happy scenario wher Jews and Muslims stop hating each other.

Well maybe I'm a bit more optmistic about it then you but if someone can get the youth to stop hating and if someone can influence the governments to stop killing eachother then I think something can be done. Even if they keep refusing our attempts at help we should keep giving them because its better to have tried to do something and have them refuse then sit there and watch.

Everyone would have been happier if it never had gotten started, but since it did get started, are you glad be stopped it, or do you think we should have let it continue.

Im gonna give you the answer you want to hear. Im SO happy it was stopped because jews are most hated group of people ever and everyone should do everything they can to make them feel special and comfortable.

Yes but you said that the only reason it was bad was simply because it allowed for the state of Israel, not for the murder of countless innocents.
That was bad too

[QUOTE=The UN abassadorship]Im gonna give you the answer you want to hear. Im SO happy it was stopped because jews are most hated group of people ever and everyone should do everything they can to make them feel special and comfortable.[QUOTE]

Thats not what I want to hear...I dont beleive in retributions and all that....But if someone is being murdered...I would stop it and I expect other people to stop it as well.

[QUOTE]That was bad too[QUOTE]

Wow...glad your really grasped the concept.

And Rwanda is what happens when you take a stance of non interference in a situation like that. If you think Rwanda is a stain on the world then there is no logical way you can say well we shouldn't have helped the Jews and the Russians needed to take care of the Germans.

Do you think I believe we should not have stopped the Germans from slaughtering the Jews in WWII? :eek:

Of course we should have! That is an example of one side going after another side that does not fight back. Now though Israel and Palestine are both killing each other, Palestinians are accused of being terrorists and Israel of using what can be argued as war crimes against the Palestinian people. Both sides are dirty. Rwanda and WWII can not be compared to the conflict going on there now.

Do you think I believe we should not have stopped the Germans from slaughtering the Jews in WWII? :eek:
People confuse you and me all the time, because they seem to be incapable of reading past the first letter in a word.

Thats not what I want to hear...I dont beleive in retributions and all that....But if someone is being murdered...I would stop it and I expect other people to stop it as well.
and yet you dont care about the murder of Palestinians. Seems like you only want to stop murder when the people being killed are jews

and yet you dont care about the murder of Palestinians. Seems like you only want to stop murder when the people being killed are jews

Nope, I only want to stop murder when its only innocent people.


If its not, its not murder.

Palestinians arnt innocent.

People confuse you and me all the time, because they seem to be incapable of reading past the first letter in a word.

It happens. Really, the Allies could have done just a LITTLE more than they did in WWII to do something about the German atrocities. It is only human life we are talking about. Bomb the railroads leading to the camps, anything that could be done should have been. Instead we were too busy letting the Russians lose millions of men while we continued to say how we "weren't ready to invade Europe yet." :rolleyes:

and yet you dont care about the murder of Palestinians. Seems like you only want to stop murder when the people being killed are jews

Both sides are killing each other. They both need to learn to do something besides violence if they ever hope to get anything they want.

Nope, I only want to stop murder when its only innocent people.


If its not, its not murder.

Palestinians arnt innocent.
No, Israelis arent innocent, nor are the people who support them. They all have the blood of innocent palestinians on their hands. This is why it justifiable to kill "innocent" civilians in Israel through martyr attacks. Those who agree with Israel's policies of violence and murder should expect to be the target of violence.

Palestinians arnt innocent.
Yeah. I’m the anti-Semite.:rolleyes:

No, Israelis arent innocent, nor are the people who support them. They all have the blood of innocent palestinians on their hands. This is why it justifiable to kill "innocent" civilians in Israel through martyr attacks. Those who agree with Israel's policies of violence and murder should expect to be the target of violence.

Ah, look at this..Yassir Arafat speaking from the grave!

Glad to see you use yourself to channel Arafats spirit.:rolleyes:

No, Israelis arent innocent, nor are the people who support them. They all have the blood of innocent palestinians on their hands. This is why it justifiable to kill "innocent" civilians in Israel through martyr attacks. Those who agree with Israel's policies of violence and murder should expect to be the target of violence.

2 wrongs don't make a right.

Yeah. I’m the anti-Semite.:rolleyes:

?

Nope, I only want to stop murder when its only innocent people.


If its not, its not murder.

Palestinians arnt innocent.
No, Israelis arent innocent, nor are the people who support them. They all have the blood of innocent palestinians on their hands. This is why it justifiable to kill "innocent" civilians in Israel through martyr attacks. Those who agree with Israel's policies of violence and murder should expect to be the target of violence.
And this is why the violence goes on and on and on and on etc.

2 wrongs don't make a right.
bottom line is Israel stops their actions and the Palestinians will stop theirs. not the other way around

bottom line is Israel stops their actions and the Palestinians will stop theirs. not the other way around

Wrong.


Arabs stop attacking Israel, Israel stops having to be so militaristic.

And this is why the violence goes on and on and on and on etc.
Indeed. It's sounding quite a bit like the Protestants and Catholics in Europe in the 17th century, or children fighting on the playground, take your pick since they're idiots either way.

Arabs stop attacking Israel, Israel stops having to be so militaristic.

bottom line is Israel stops their actions and the Palestinians will stop theirs. not the other way around
Why not both stop at the same time? :rolleyes:

Both wrong.
The keyword here is Compromise

?
Palestinians are Semites.
I simply oppose the state of Israel and have no beef with the Jewish people.

You, on the other, hand single out an ethnicity, a Semitic ethnicity at that, and berate it.

Then you say, I’m the one who belongs on Stormfront? Weird.

Why not both stop at the same time? :rolleyes:
because Israel cant be trusted

bottom line is Israel stops their actions and the Palestinians will stop theirs. not the other way around

And the logic can go the other way too. So when does it stop then when both sides go when the other stops their attacks they'll stop theirs? Its idiocy and lunacy to take that position UN.

That doesn't mean though that he agrees with the Holocaust.

Undelia's a special case because he's taken to a radical individualist, sorta objectivist but not quite philosophy. As such, it makes sense to say that the Holocaust was none of his business and thus should not be something his tax dollars go to, either way.

Has Undelia not noticed that the US ecconomy underwent a massive expansion during WWII as a direct result of being at war? The tax dollars were certainly spent, but they got damn good returns on them... to say nothing of the fact that US entry into the war had fuck all to do with the holocaust.

Palestinians arnt innocent.

Of what are they guilty?

Of what are they guilty?
dont you know being a-rab is a crime enough:rolleyes:

And the logic can go the other way too. So when does it stop then when both sides go when the other stops their attacks they'll stop theirs? Its idiocy and lunacy to take that position UN.
A) this post was kind of hard to follow. B) if its idiotic and lunatic then it would apply to atlian islands since he said the same thing, you cant just single me out

Has Undelia not noticed that the US ecconomy underwent a massive expansion during WWII as a direct result of being at war? The tax dollars were certainly spent, but they got damn good returns on them... to say nothing of the fact that US entry into the war had fuck all to do with the holocaust.
We could have got the same results by simply selling weapons to belligerent powers.

I know that US leaders couldn’t have cared less about the holocaust, or else they would have used it as propaganda. Since it’s been proven that FDR “sold us up a creak” as late forties Republicans used to say, it is used as a justification for the war, which must be countered, lest we drown in militarism.

We could have got the same results by simply selling weapons to belligerent powers.

Merely being an international arms dealer doesn't really stir up the same spirit of self-sacrifice and jingoism which is necessary for that kind of economic expansion.


EDIT: to say nothing of the fact that the US trade in weaponry was one of the factors that precipitated its entry into the war.

I know that US leaders couldn’t have cared less about the holocaust, or else they would have used it as propaganda. Since it’s been proven that FDR “sold us up a creak” as late forties Republicans used to say, it is used as a justification for the war, which must be countered, lest we drown in militarism.

Question: when do you think the Allies became aware of the holocaust?

A) this post was kind of hard to follow. B) if its idiotic and lunatic then it would apply to atlian islands since he said the same thing, you cant just single me out

The whole point is that if both sides hold that sort of belief only more slaughter will occur. Perhaps if both sides take a pro active stance on stoping the violence instead of a reactive stance something would get done. And who said I was singling you out UN. I think both sides who use that type of arguement are too stubborn for their own good.

I think I see now how the Caliphate was able to maintain peace in Israel-Palestine, or the Romans, or the Hellenes, or the Persians: apparently both sides are so inherently distrustful of each other and therefore require a strong third-party ruler to keep them both in line, because otherwise they'll both act like idiots.

Maybe a neutral party should take over that region and administer justice to both sides.

In 30-06 form.

Tired of IDFs anti-arab mozel hut? dont worry, detective dipshit is on the job.

Lets start off with his original post. IDF, with your vast knowledge in history, you would know that the number of Jews in Palestine before the year 1900 was below 10 000. These are the same Jews that Yasser Arafat called his cousins, as they are both a similar race, and they look and behave similar (just look at the violence on both sides, we're both as stubborn as hell.) These Jews were called Palestinians, just like everyone else, because they were an extremely small minority in the area so they were collectively known with the arabs. Saying there was racial violence against them by the arab population contradicts this as the arabs thought of the jews as "one of us."

Ive heard the "legally bought the land" point, and time and time again, I have to explain the laws of purchasing land. "Real Estate," does not mean an estate that is real, but actually "royals estate." This term was invented in the middle ages, so we need to take a modern perspective of it. By royals, we can take to mean the modern equivelent of royals, that is the government. Believe it or not, but if you own a piece of land in your country, it is actually still owned by the government. This echos true as i am still bound by the laws of my country, and I cannot just suddenly say that my house and the surrounding land is now a separate country (as the jews did.)

Now, after the year 1900, and the subsequent world wars, I am sure you are aware of the mass ILlegal immigration to the land of Palestine, where Jews came, in the hundreds of thousands, on crowded boats and simply flooded away the arab population. That is the reason for the Balfour Declaration, because now there was a similar population of arabs and jews, even though 95% of those jews were illegal immigrants. Imagine of texas, arizona, new mexico and california, due to the large number of mexican immigrants, were made into states of mexico due to the fact they house many mexicans, however they are mostly illegals, and shouldnt be there in the first place.

You forget that there were riots on both sides, with jews rioting against the british for trying to halt the illegal immigration of jews into Palestine, so do not try to paint the arabs as violent by talking about the arab riots, the door swings both ways.

Oh my god, of course the arabs didnt want jews coming to their land, nobody did, they went to america and many other countries, and were turned away, and yet somehow everyone thought that the palestinians should accept them all, all their millions, a number so large it outnumbered the palestinians. What was given in return for the palestinians reluctantly taking in all those jews? their country being taken away.

The reason arabs supported the nazis (LOL, here u are playing the holocaust card again) was because the nazis were against the british, the same british occupying the middle east. Most of the world was not aware of the holocaust until 1945, so you should not try to link arab support for the nazis with the holocaust and anti-semitism. The afrikaans in south africa supported the nazis as well due to the fact they were invaded by the british.

UNSCOP realised that partition was the only viable option because now the jews were the majority in the land, due to the illegal immigration.

The UN vote was utter nonsense, you try to make it sound like the arabs decision doesnt count by saying "11 out of the 13 votes were by arab states." However in reality it is the other 35 member states' votes that do not count, it is not their country, and so is not their decision. If the UN got to vote on nations borders, imagine what the world would look like, one third of the nations of this world (probably the largest and most powerful nations, as all countries have an equal vote) would disappear.

Are you serious when you say Israel has to exist so Jews do not get exterminated??? Where, in any place in this world, are Jews under greater threat of being attacked than in israel? Israel is the most dangerous place for jews, not the place that guards and protects them.

When you try to say Palestine was never a country, you are taking the country out of context. The arab world was originally a single country, however after subsequent invasions by the ottomans and the british, they were divided, however we are actually one people and one country. Call the palestinians arabs if you will, and you will see that all they want is to live under arab rule, it does not matter if their country is called palestine, trans-jordan, or even israel, as long as they are ruled by their own people, the name is irrelevant.

The Jews were not the only people that went through a lot in WWII, many communists, homosexuals, and gypsies were also killed, millions of them in fact. However it is the jews who complain the most and act as if they were the only people killed during the holocaust.

Now IDF, try to justify the fact that Israel is twice the size of the British mandate, the majority of it was not purchased by pre-israeli jews, and that it is commiting countless war crimes and justifies it by saying "we were killed during the holocaust in world war 2, we are allowed to treat others like dirt, and dont complain, or else you are an anti-semite and support hitler!"

this brings me to another point, Israel is an ethnocentric country, a style of apartheid and exclusion of minorities. Israel is a direct link with jews, so if youre not a jew, well then you cannot be a full israeli. There is in fact discrimination against ethiopian and russian jews in israel, the ones that were there first. This shows that the problems in Palestine started not with jews in general, but with the arrogance of the immigrant jews from europe who treat even the original jews as second-class citizens.

IDF, there is a separation between people and state in modern countries. Im an iraqi and i hate syria, but that does not mean i hate arabs, as i am an arab myself, i am just against the policies of the country, as i am against the policies, or the existence, of the state of israel. Jews can live in palestine, i am ok with that, but not under the rule of israel, as has been justified by my post. You see, you can be anti-israeli without being anti-semetic.

Go ahead and play the anti-semite or nazi card on me, or try to justify everything with the holocaust, because i will warn you now, it will not take you anywhere

I think I see now how the Caliphate was able to maintain peace in Israel-Palestine, or the Romans, or the Hellenes, or the Persians: apparently both sides are so inherently distrustful of each other and therefore require a strong third-party ruler to keep them both in line, because otherwise they'll both act like idiots.

Maybe a neutral party should take over that region and administer justice to both sides.
Who exactly would be the third party and how would you know they could be neutral, not favoring one side over the other?

"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." - Thomas Friedman

PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING IF YOU ARE AGAINST ISRAEL

The violence in the British Mandate of Palestine against the Jews didn't start with the partition or the Haganah as the biased and ignorant anti-Israel crowd has been asserting here.

The violence against Jews in Palestine had been ongoing for centuries. Jews had been living in Jerusalem and Safed continuously for millenia. For the last few centuries, the Jews of Safed had been enduring abuse from Muslims inspired by radical clerics. The Jews of Safed were ultra-religious Kabalists who never struck back.

When the Jews began to LEGALLY return to the land after fleeing the Pales of Russia in the 1st Aliyah, they bought the land from absentee Arab landowners living elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire. They started the first kibbutzim on this land. The Arabs attacked and raided the Kibbutzim on a regular basis.

It should be noted the Jews weren't fighting back or doing anything to instigate the violence. They were there 100% legally.

The British of course made the Balfour Declaration, which was a legal promise to a Jewish state in Israel, in 1917 during WWI to reward Jewish support of the British war effort. The British of course took over the territory, which was known as Trans-Jordan. Palestine was split off as a seperate part when Britain gave most of Trans-Jordan to King Abdullah in order to create a counterbalance to the Saud family in Saudi Arabia.

In 1920, The Arabs started a series of riots. Hundreds of Jews were woudned by Arabs who started an actual pogrom against people who legally moved to the land to escape the Czar's pogroms. It was this action that led to the formation of Haganah, which was a defensive army, not an offensive one.

There was another large scale Arab riot in 1929. The riots killed hundreds of Jews and injured thousands more. The riots began because the Arabs watned the Jews to be barred from going to their holiest spot, the Western Wall. The British stood by and let this all happen. They were appeasing the Arab population and let them try to destroy the Jews. The Peel commission placed full blame on the Arabs.

In the 1930s, a new immigration wave of Jews came into the land. They were German Jews who were fleeing Hitler's Germany. The Arabs didn't want these Jews to come into the land. As a result, they began an uprising that lasted from 1936-1939. Britain appeased the Arabs once again and turned dozens of large ships around sending them back to Germany. Britain and the Arabs had a huge part in condemning 6 million of my people to death.

The 1930's uprising led to the Peel Commission to recommend partition of the Palestinian Mandate. They recommended this Arab biased partition which gave the Jews a small portion of what they were asking for. The Jews accepted this compromise. The Arabs rejected it and turned towards more violence. (Had they accepted it, the 1947 partition wouldn't be necessary and there would be peace.)

http://www.pnic.gov.ps/arabic/geography/maps/map14.jpg

WWII broke out. The Arabs supported the Nazis. The leader of the Palestinians, Ij Amin Al-Husseini, fled to Nazi Germany and was a guest of Hitler. He advised Eichman and other SS officers on how to best execute the Jews. Al-Husseini had plans to do the same to the Jews in Palestine if and when Britain surrrendered. He also was the man most responsible for the 3 past riots over the preceding 2 decades.

The Palestinians and other Arabs treated the Germans as liberaters. They threw the Germans a parade as they marched into Cairo. The Jews on the other hand had the Haganah join forces with the British army to fight Viche French forces in Lebanon and on other battlefields they were needed. The Jews paid a heavy price and were largely responsible for the UK being able to hold the vital Suez Canal throughout the course of the war.

After the war, the UK continued to support the Palestinians and appease them. They forgave AL-Husseini and insured he was brought back to put down the Jews and hopefully keep them from getting a state. They did this despite the fact the Jews had paid a heavy price to help the British in the war.

In 1947, the UNSCOP did an assessment of the situation. They came to the conclusion that partition was the only viable option. The UN voted 33-13 on partition. 11 of the 13 votes were Arab states so of the non-Arab states, the vote was an astounding 33-2.

The partition may have seemed unfair to the Arabs. I know people have been waving a map aroudn shwoing where settlements were and what the Jews got. It looks like the Jews got the sweet end. While the Northern and Western parts the Jews got were where their settlements were. The map leads one to assume the Jews got land where the Arabs were the majority. The fact is that if one knew the settlement of the Negev at the time, they would know it was completely deserted. There were no Jewish or Arab settlements there. If one ignores the Negev, you will see the land distribution was logical given population numbers.

The Jews did have some Arabs within their given territories. They invited the Arabs to stay on the land. The Arabs never accepted the partiion in the first place. They declared war on the Jews. The Mufti returned to lead the Arab armies in a quest to "throw the Jews into the sea" as he himself put it. This war wasn't about the land. It was about Muslims wanting to finish Hitler's work.

King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia said this:"There are 50,000,000 Arabs. What does it matter if we lose 10,000,000 to kill all the Jews. The price is worth it."

AL Husseini said "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers. Murder the Jews! Murder them all!"

This is the mentality the Jews were up against. They weren't fighting for their land. They were fighting for their right to live.

The Jews of course won the War of Liberation. Yes some Arabs were misplaced. Most by choice either because they didn't want to live under Jewish rule, or because they were asked by Arab leaders and expected to return after the swift Arab victory their leaders promised.

Some were forced out during the war, it was tragic, but a higher number of Jews were kicked out by Arab countries like Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen in the aftermath of the war. Israel absorbed these people on a very small tract of land while the Arabs refused to accept their own on over 100 times the amount of land given to the Jews.

I applaud that post! Well done! Excellent research

Tired of IDFs anti-arab mozel hut? dont worry, detective dipshit is on the job.

Lets start off with his original post. IDF, with your vast knowledge in history, you would know that the number of Jews in Palestine before the year 1900 was below 10 000. These are the same Jews that Yasser Arafat called his cousins, as they are both a similar race, and they look and behave similar (just look at the violence on both sides, we're both as stubborn as hell.) These Jews were called Palestinians, just like everyone else, because they were an extremely small minority in the area so they were collectively known with the arabs. Saying there was racial violence against them by the arab population contradicts this as the arabs thought of the jews as "one of us."

Ive heard the "legally bought the land" point, and time and time again, I have to explain the laws of purchasing land. "Real Estate," does not mean an estate that is real, but actually "royals estate." This term was invented in the middle ages, so we need to take a modern perspective of it. By royals, we can take to mean the modern equivelent of royals, that is the government. Believe it or not, but if you own a piece of land in your country, it is actually still owned by the government. This echos true as i am still bound by the laws of my country, and I cannot just suddenly say that my house and the surrounding land is now a separate country (as the jews did.)

Now, after the year 1900, and the subsequent world wars, I am sure you are aware of the mass ILlegal immigration to the land of Palestine, where Jews came, in the hundreds of thousands, on crowded boats and simply flooded away the arab population. That is the reason for the Balfour Declaration, because now there was a similar population of arabs and jews, even though 95% of those jews were illegal immigrants. Imagine of texas, arizona, new mexico and california, due to the large number of mexican immigrants, were made into states of mexico due to the fact they house many mexicans, however they are mostly illegals, and shouldnt be there in the first place.

You forget that there were riots on both sides, with jews rioting against the british for trying to halt the illegal immigration of jews into Palestine, so do not try to paint the arabs as violent by talking about the arab riots, the door swings both ways.

Oh my god, of course the arabs didnt want jews coming to their land, nobody did, they went to america and many other countries, and were turned away, and yet somehow everyone thought that the palestinians should accept them all, all their millions, a number so large it outnumbered the palestinians. What was given in return for the palestinians reluctantly taking in all those jews? their country being taken away.

The reason arabs supported the nazis (LOL, here u are playing the holocaust card again) was because the nazis were against the british, the same british occupying the middle east. Most of the world was not aware of the holocaust until 1945, so you should not try to link arab support for the nazis with the holocaust and anti-semitism. The afrikaans in south africa supported the nazis as well due to the fact they were invaded by the british.

UNSCOP realised that partition was the only viable option because now the jews were the majority in the land, due to the illegal immigration.

The UN vote was utter nonsense, you try to make it sound like the arabs decision doesnt count by saying "11 out of the 13 votes were by arab states." However in reality it is the other 35 member states' votes that do not count, it is not their country, and so is not their decision. If the UN got to vote on nations borders, imagine what the world would look like, one third of the nations of this world (probably the largest and most powerful nations, as all countries have an equal vote) would disappear.

Are you serious when you say Israel has to exist so Jews do not get exterminated??? Where, in any place in this world, are Jews under greater threat of being attacked than in israel? Israel is the most dangerous place for jews, not the place that guards and protects them.

When you try to say Palestine was never a country, you are taking the country out of context. The arab world was originally a single country, however after subsequent invasions by the ottomans and the british, they were divided, however we are actually one people and one country. Call the palestinians arabs if you will, and you will see that all they want is to live under arab rule, it does not matter if their country is called palestine, trans-jordan, or even israel, as long as they are ruled by their own people, the name is irrelevant.

The Jews were not the only people that went through a lot in WWII, many communists, homosexuals, and gypsies were also killed, millions of them in fact. However it is the jews who complain the most and act as if they were the only people killed during the holocaust.

Now IDF, try to justify the fact that Israel is twice the size of the British mandate, the majority of it was not purchased by pre-israeli jews, and that it is commiting countless war crimes and justifies it by saying "we were killed during the holocaust in world war 2, we are allowed to treat others like dirt, and dont complain, or else you are an anti-semite and support hitler!"

this brings me to another point, Israel is an ethnocentric country, a style of apartheid and exclusion of minorities. Israel is a direct link with jews, so if youre not a jew, well then you cannot be a full israeli. There is in fact discrimination against ethiopian and russian jews in israel, the ones that were there first. This shows that the problems in Palestine started not with jews in general, but with the arrogance of the immigrant jews from europe who treat even the original jews as second-class citizens.

IDF, there is a separation between people and state in modern countries. Im an iraqi and i hate syria, but that does not mean i hate arabs, as i am an arab myself, i am just against the policies of the country, as i am against the policies, or the existence, of the state of israel. Jews can live in palestine, i am ok with that, but not under the rule of israel, as has been justified by my post. You see, you can be anti-israeli without being anti-semetic.

Go ahead and play the anti-semite or nazi card on me, or try to justify everything with the holocaust, because i will warn you now, it will not take you anywhere
bravo, excellent post

Imagine of texas, arizona, new mexico and california, due to the large number of mexican immigrants, were made into states of mexico due to the fact they house many mexicans, however they are mostly illegals, and shouldnt be there in the first place.

*Opens another can of worms*

but Mexicans have the right to return, no ?:p

"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." - Thomas Friedman

No, it could well have absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism. The Judaism of the residents of Israel has very little to do with the international attention directed towards it, except because of its relationship to the Diaspora Jews.

PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING IF YOU ARE AGAINST ISRAEL

I am opposed to all states and all nationalist ideologies, including typical Zionism. I am also against all denials of self-determination, all institutional systems of discrimination and oppression, and the merging, partial or complete, of church and state (or synagogue and state for that matter).

The violence in the British Mandate of Palestine against the Jews didn't start with the partition or the Haganah as the biased and ignorant anti-Israel crowd has been asserting here.

True enough, though I cannot claim any knowledge as to what the "biased and ignorant anti-Israel crowd" has been saying on this subject.

The violence against Jews in Palestine had been ongoing for centuries. Jews had been living in Jerusalem and Safed continuously for millenia. For the last few centuries, the Jews of Safed had been enduring abuse from Muslims inspired by radical clerics. The Jews of Safed were ultra-religious Kabalists who never struck back.

Perhaps, but note that the pre-Zionist Jews of Palestine were overwhelmingly in adamant opposition to Zionism, and for the most part still are. That is to a considerable degree where organizations like Neturei Karta come from. Talmudically, they have a point, which makes the Dati-Leumi crowd even more absurd.

When the Jews began to LEGALLY return to the land after fleeing the Pales of Russia in the 1st Aliyah, they bought the land from absentee Arab landowners living elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire.

Thereby expelling the peasants who actually worked and lived on the land, which was one significant cause of the early violence. The socialist ideology of most of the settlers didn't stop them from exploiting systems of feudal oppression, in the typical racist hypocrisy they would display many, many times afterward. International socialist brotherhood has always been difficult for left-nationalists, and the Zionists were no exception, especially as they became left-colonialists.

They started the first kibbutzim on this land. The Arabs attacked and raided the Kibbutzim on a regular basis.

See above comment.

It should be noted the Jews weren't fighting back or doing anything to instigate the violence.

Again, see above comment. Furthermore, the Jews most definitely fought back, with legitimate reason I suppose.

They were there 100% legally.

Legality gets you nowhere. It has absolutely nothing to do with morality.

The British of course made the Balfour Declaration, which was a legal promise to a Jewish state in Israel, in 1917 during WWI to reward Jewish support of the British war effort.

That is, an illegitimate imperialist power gave away land they had no right to give away.

The British of course took over the territory, which was known as Trans-Jordan. Palestine was split off as a seperate part when Britain gave most of Trans-Jordan to King Abdullah in order to create a counterbalance to the Saud family in Saudi Arabia.

I believe that your terminology is reversed here, though I could be wrong - the region was called Palestine, and the British broke off most of it and called that part Transjordan. Note that Balfour made no explicit territorial guarantees, and, considering the complete lack of Zionist settlement there, the idea that Transjordan should count at all in terms of who got what parts of the land is absurd.

In 1920, The Arabs started a series of riots. Hundreds of Jews were woudned by Arabs who started an actual pogrom against people who legally moved to the land to escape the Czar's pogroms. It was this action that led to the formation of Haganah, which was a defensive army, not an offensive one.

A rather subjective characterization, one that would hardly attract the sympathy of those the Haganah attacked. There were many.

There was another large scale Arab riot in 1929. The riots killed hundreds of Jews and injured thousands more. The riots began because the Arabs watned the Jews to be barred from going to their holiest spot, the Western Wall. The British stood by and let this all happen. They were appeasing the Arab population and let them try to destroy the Jews. The Peel commission placed full blame on the Arabs.

My history here is a little weak, aside from the typical Zionist lines you repeat here. All I will note is that colonial projects are in their own a sort of attack, and violent reactions to them are to be expected, though in this particular case were hardly justified.

In the 1930s, a new immigration wave of Jews came into the land. They were German Jews who were fleeing Hitler's Germany. The Arabs didn't want these Jews to come into the land. As a result, they began an uprising that lasted from 1936-1939. Britain appeased the Arabs once again and turned dozens of large ships around sending them back to Germany. Britain and the Arabs had a huge part in condemning 6 million of my people to death.

I don't know about "huge." Significant, definitely, like that of the United States, which also refused to accept refugees, and whose sovereignty was hardly under threat by any colonial project. There were very many guilty players in this particular matter.

The 1930's uprising led to the Peel Commission to recommend partition of the Palestinian Mandate. They recommended this Arab biased partition which gave the Jews a small portion of what they were asking for.

Justifiably. Check the comparative population levels. Or, if you really believe in all this "legality" nonsense and accept the divine right of property owners, compare proportions of land ownership; they are even less balanced.

The Jews accepted this compromise. The Arabs rejected it and turned towards more violence. (Had they accepted it, the 1947 partition wouldn't be necessary and there would be peace.)

Utter nonsense. Ben-Gurion was very clear, when speaking to the Zionist leadership, that the borders were to be temporary, and that Israel, once it established itself, would conquer the rest of the land once it was ready. Much like the current paranoia about the danger of a Palestinian state, but in this case, the Zionists actually had the capability to seize more Palestinian land, as a Palestinian state, faced with overwhelming Israeli military superiority, certainly would not have. For what it's worth, this same line of temporary borders and future conquest was reiterated in 1947.

WWII broke out. The Arabs supported the Nazis.

Some of them did, for the same reason nationalist movements in Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Africa would later support the Soviets.

The leader of the Palestinians, Ij Amin Al-Husseini,

A truly despicable man.

fled to Nazi Germany and was a guest of Hitler. He advised Eichman and other SS officers on how to best execute the Jews. Al-Husseini had plans to do the same to the Jews in Palestine if and when Britain surrrendered. He also was the man most responsible for the 3 past riots over the preceding 2 decades.

Not that he could have done so, or could even have come close.

The Palestinians and other Arabs treated the Germans as liberaters. They threw the Germans a parade as they marched into Cairo. The Jews on the other hand had the Haganah join forces with the British army to fight Viche French forces in Lebanon and on other battlefields they were needed. The Jews paid a heavy price and were largely responsible for the UK being able to hold the vital Suez Canal throughout the course of the war.

"We will fight the White Paper as if there were no war and we will fight the war as if there were no White Paper."

After the war, the UK continued to support the Palestinians and appease them. They forgave AL-Husseini and insured he was brought back to put down the Jews and hopefully keep them from getting a state. They did this despite the fact the Jews had paid a heavy price to help the British in the war.

Imperialist posturing does not and has never had anything to do with paying debts.

In 1947, the UNSCOP did an assessment of the situation. They came to the conclusion that partition was the only viable option. The UN voted 33-13 on partition. 11 of the 13 votes were Arab states so of the non-Arab states, the vote was an astounding 33-2.

Considering that the two major superpowers were on Israel's side, hardly "astounding." Truman and Stalin did not agree on much.

The partition may have seemed unfair to the Arabs. I know people have been waving a map aroudn shwoing where settlements were and what the Jews got. It looks like the Jews got the sweet end. While the Northern and Western parts the Jews got were where their settlements were. The map leads one to assume the Jews got land where the Arabs were the majority. The fact is that if one knew the settlement of the Negev at the time, they would know it was completely deserted. There were no Jewish or Arab settlements there. If one ignores the Negev, you will see the land distribution was logical given population numbers.

Again, few in the Zionist leadership expected to keep to Partition boundaries, and the Haganah's offensive campaign after the 1947 Partition was accepted but before the state was to be created involved considerably more territory than the Partition had given them. Al-Naqba, as the brutal attacks on and expulsions of hundreds of thousands of the Palestinians are called by them, actually began during this period, though it only intensified towards the end of the "War of Independence."

The Jews did have some Arabs within their given territories. They invited the Arabs to stay on the land.

Except when they savagely attacked and expelled them, though to be fair that was largely in the territories they conquered, which also had more significant Arab populations.

The Arabs never accepted the partiion in the first place.

A foolish choice, as the consequences showed quite clearly.

They declared war on the Jews.

On the Zionists.

The Mufti returned to lead the Arab armies in a quest to "throw the Jews into the sea" as he himself put it. This war wasn't about the land. It was about Muslims wanting to finish Hitler's work.

It was about a bunch of incompetent and corrupt puppets of British imperialism trying to appease the Arab nationalists seeking to overthrow their regimes, which they would precede to do once the war was over. There was no cooperation between the Arab armies, and no real dedication to the war on the part of anyone but the Palestinians, in which case it was really a matter of self-defense. Despite the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Arab armies, within Palestine itself by the later months of the war the IDF outnumbered the Arab forces. That is telling.

King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia said this:"There are 50,000,000 Arabs. What does it matter if we lose 10,000,000 to kill all the Jews. The price is worth it."

AL Husseini said "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers. Murder the Jews! Murder them all!"

This is the mentality the Jews were up against. They weren't fighting for their land. They were fighting for their right to live.

They were fighting to conquer as much of the land they had not been given by the Partition as possible (and it was in the territories designated for the Palestinian state in which the vast majority of the fighting took place), with the exception of Jerusalem, which Transjordan illegitimately seized and the IDF attempted to re-conquer multiple times.

The Jews of course won the War of Liberation. Yes some Arabs were misplaced. Most by choice either because they didn't want to live under Jewish rule, or because they were asked by Arab leaders and expected to return after the swift Arab victory their leaders promised.

Or because they were under savage and murderous assault by the IDF. Read a little on the subject, aside from the right-wing Zionist propaganda. It was by "choice" in a philosophical, existentialist sense, but hardly a demonstration of non-coercion.

Some were forced out during the war, it was tragic, but a higher number of Jews were kicked out by Arab countries like Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen in the aftermath of the war. Israel absorbed these people on a very small tract of land while the Arabs refused to accept their own on over 100 times the amount of land given to the Jews.

An atrocity, but not on par with al-Naqba; the Jews in Arab countries, for the most part, did not suffer the same pressures as the Palestinians did to leave. Furthermore, as you point out, their situation was dealt with; relevant to the current conflict is how to deal with the Palestinian refugees, who have not yet been dealt with, and must be, in a humane and just fashion, in order to achieve a decent solution to the conflict.

Question: when do you think the Allies became aware of the holocaust?
Our leaders were aware of it when it began.

Educated people knew that with Hitler’s philosophy (he wrote it down for Christ’s sake), the Jews couldn’t possibly be having a good time.

The average American didn’t know until the troops learned of them, starting with generals and working down the chain of command, as our armies neared the locations of known camps.

i only have one thing to add. Israel decided that they wanted a country. they decided that they wanted it where they were and where a lot of Jew had gathered. so they got together and decided to declare their independence and start a new country. this didn't go over to well with the Arabs in the area, so there was a war. Israel won. now they have a country. Arabs still didn't like this so they started another war. Israel won again. Arabs have started quite a few wars with Israel and Israel has always won. i think thats what give them a right to a country. thats why America is here. thats why most of the countries in the world exist. if the Palestinian wont accept what Israel is willing to give them (and i think Israel has given them a lot) then why not declare complete independence and self reliance? why not stop all bombings and live in peace. i think Israel would be more then happy to leave the Palestinians alone if they wouldn't need to deal with bombings and rocket attacks. if the Arabs cant live with that then why not actually try to destroy Israel again. but if they fail again Israel has all the right in the world to demand terms. and they damn well should.
end of my rant:)

this didn't go over to well with the Arabs in the area, so there was a war. Israel won. now they have a country. Arabs still didn't like this so they started another war. Israel won again. Arabs have started quite a few wars with Israel and Israel has always won. i think thats what give them a right to a country. thats why America is here. thats why most of the countries in the world exist.

Victory in war does not give anyone a "right" to a country. Not the United States, nor any other country on the planet.

Note also that the second Arab-Israeli war, the 1956 Sinai Campaign, was begun by Israel and not by the Arab states. So was the 1967 Six Day War and the 1982 Lebanon invasion.

Victory in war does not give anyone a "right" to a country. Not the United States, nor any other country on the planet.

Note also that the second Arab-Israeli war, the 1956 Sinai Campaign, was begun by Israel and not by the Arab states. So was the 1967 Six Day War and the 1982 Lebanon invasion.

So your for the revival of the prussian state? Take that land that poland has and give it back to the rightful owners? Because I hear all this support for giving back the Palestinians their land but those poor Prussians lost their country and no one gives a damn.

Tired of IDFs anti-arab mozel hut? dont worry, detective dipshit is on the job.

Lets start off with his original post. IDF, with your vast knowledge in history, you would know that the number of Jews in Palestine before the year 1900 was below 10 000. These are the same Jews that Yasser Arafat called his cousins, as they are both a similar race, and they look and behave similar (just look at the violence on both sides, we're both as stubborn as hell.) These Jews were called Palestinians, just like everyone else, because they were an extremely small minority in the area so they were collectively known with the arabs. Saying there was racial violence against them by the arab population contradicts this as the arabs thought of the jews as "one of us."

First, anyone with a lick of sense knows that "race" is an arbitrary concept that really holds no weight. It is rejected in anthropology and history. Because "race" does not exist as such, it is absurd to say that the Jews of the region and the Arabs are the same "race." Ethnicity is a more valid concept - and the Sefardi Jews that existed in the British Mandate of Palestine are a distinctly different ethnicity from the Arabs of that region. Even various Arab groups are distinctly different in ethnicity. And most Arabs and Sefardi Jews would probably slap you for saying that they look and behave similiar.

Furthermore, the number of Jews in the region during that time period really doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that the land was legally granted to the Jews by the owners of the land - the British. Just because Arabs were living on the land granted to the British, does not mean that the land belonged to the Arabs. It legally belonged to the British after the British Mandate, and was legally granted to the Jewish people to form a state. Now, if you respect the Rule of Law, you must respect the fact that the land was legally transferred from the British to the Jewish people, and that the Arabs had no legal right to it.

In addition, no Jews in this region were called "Palestinians." The term "Palestinians" was not used for any ethnic group in the region until it was revived by the British (British Mandate of Palestine). A single Arab group didn't begin to identify as a "Palestinians" until after the Jewish state was formed.

And racial violence against the Jewish minority was a fact. Rather you claim it is in conflict with the two-forked tongue of a terrorist, Yasser Arafat, doesn't change history. The "Complete Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict" by Mitchell G. Bard, PhD cites more raiding and attacks on Jews from Arabs than I could even list here. For example:

"April 1937...attacks on Jewish settlements led by a Syrian guerrilla, Fawzi el-Kaukji (who was a close friend of the mufti)." (102)
"In November, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded" (102)
Under the heading "Riots become an Arab weapon" Mitchell writes, "The Arab Phobia of being displaced or dominated was used as an excuse for attacks on peaceful Jewish settlers" and on the next page under "Arab Pogroms" he cites that Arabs routinely rioted, while the British prevented Jews from fighting back, and killed 135 Jews and wounded 350 during peaceful religious observances at the wailing wall. (94-96)

You're also incorrect to state that the number of Jews before 1900 was less than 10,000. The same source cites that during one aliyah alone during the 1880s the BILU group near 20,000 Jews settled in that area. (65) It goes on to state that a second aliyah between 1900 and 1914 brought in 40,000 new immigrants (69). Downplaying the number of Jews in the Middle East doesn't do anything to discredit the right to Israel's existence, however, as it still maintains a legal claim to the land. It just exposes the dishonesty of the anti-Semites. There could have been zero Jews, but it was still land legally granted to the Jewish people to form a Jewish State.

Ive heard the "legally bought the land" point, and time and time again, I have to explain the laws of purchasing land. "Real Estate," does not mean an estate that is real, but actually "royals estate." This term was invented in the middle ages, so we need to take a modern perspective of it. By royals, we can take to mean the modern equivelent of royals, that is the government. Believe it or not, but if you own a piece of land in your country, it is actually still owned by the government. This echos true as i am still bound by the laws of my country, and I cannot just suddenly say that my house and the surrounding land is now a separate country (as the jews did.)

You seem to shoot yourself in the foot with this one. This is exactly why not a single Arab in the British Mandate owned any land - rather, it was owned by Britian, because it is, as you stated, "actually still owned by the government." Britian gave it to the Jewish people to form a Jewish State. Thus, that is who it legally belonged to. The Jews were supported by Britian and the UN to form Israel, as well. They were functioning within the law when they declared Israel's independence. In fact, a Palestinian state could have done the same, but they chose war and terror instead of peaceful statehood.

Now, after the year 1900, and the subsequent world wars, I am sure you are aware of the mass ILlegal immigration to the land of Palestine, where Jews came, in the hundreds of thousands, on crowded boats and simply flooded away the arab population. That is the reason for the Balfour Declaration, because now there was a similar population of arabs and jews, even though 95% of those jews were illegal immigrants. Imagine of texas, arizona, new mexico and california, due to the large number of mexican immigrants, were made into states of mexico due to the fact they house many mexicans, however they are mostly illegals, and shouldnt be there in the first place.

Your analogy fails on one area. To begin, the Jews were stateless. They were not claiming the land for a country already in existence. This wasn't Arabs claiming the land for a country that already existed, but stateless immigrants moving (and yes, admitted illegally) with the intention to form a new state. Its quite different than Mexican nationals claiming the land of a nation in existence for their national state.

And of course, Britian did eventually support the formation of a Jewish State. In 1921 the area was divided between where Jews could settle, and where they were not allowed to settle. However, Arabs were still allowed to settle anywhere. Once again, the Jews were bending backwards for the Brits and Arabs.

You forget that there were riots on both sides, with jews rioting against the british for trying to halt the illegal immigration of jews into Palestine, so do not try to paint the arabs as violent by talking about the arab riots, the door swings both ways.


Actually, you might be surprised about what occured in those riots:

"In each riot, the British would prevent the Jews from protecting themselves, but make little or no effort to prevent the Arabs from attacking the Jews." (Bard, 94)

The door doesn't swing both ways. Arabs were allowed to riot, Jews were not allowed to defend themselves.

Oh my god, of course the arabs didnt want jews coming to their land, nobody did, they went to america and many other countries, and were turned away, and yet somehow everyone thought that the palestinians should accept them all, all their millions, a number so large it outnumbered the palestinians. What was given in return for the palestinians reluctantly taking in all those jews? their country being taken away.

You seem to be confused here. There was no Palestinian state here. This was the British Mandate of Palestine. An Arab state did not exist in this area that Jews were coming to, a British territory did.

The reason arabs supported the nazis (LOL, here u are playing the holocaust card again) was because the nazis were against the british, the same british occupying the middle east. Most of the world was not aware of the holocaust until 1945, so you should not try to link arab support for the nazis with the holocaust and anti-semitism. The afrikaans in south africa supported the nazis as well due to the fact they were invaded by the british.

Arabs still support nazis, actually. Swastikas are commonly sprayed all over the Palestinian territories and Jewish settlements by Arabs. Is that because of the British occupying the Middle East, too?

UNSCOP realised that partition was the only viable option because now the jews were the majority in the land, due to the illegal immigration.

The UN vote was utter nonsense, you try to make it sound like the arabs decision doesnt count by saying "11 out of the 13 votes were by arab states." However in reality it is the other 35 member states' votes that do not count, it is not their country, and so is not their decision. If the UN got to vote on nations borders, imagine what the world would look like, one third of the nations of this world (probably the largest and most powerful nations, as all countries have an equal vote) would disappear.

It wasn't anyone's country. It was a British territory. Why do Arab votes count more or less than non-Arab votes? The fact is, the Arab votes were biased against Jews, so its easy to predict how their votes would be. This doesn't mean that they don't count or do count. I would just deal with facts - the majority of the civilized world believed that Israel should exist.

Are you serious when you say Israel has to exist so Jews do not get exterminated??? Where, in any place in this world, are Jews under greater threat of being attacked than in israel? Israel is the most dangerous place for jews, not the place that guards and protects them.

France has the highest rate of anti-Semitic attacks. Its the most dangerous place for Jews.

When you try to say Palestine was never a country, you are taking the country out of context. The arab world was originally a single country, however after subsequent invasions by the ottomans and the british, they were divided, however we are actually one people and one country. Call the palestinians arabs if you will, and you will see that all they want is to live under arab rule, it does not matter if their country is called palestine, trans-jordan, or even israel, as long as they are ruled by their own people, the name is irrelevant.


The "Arab World" was never a single country. It was not even a single "nation" as we use the term in anthropology. Arab groups in the Middle East have distinctly different ethnicities. For example, the Arab groups in Persia/Iran had a distinctly different culture, language, set of religious practices, etc. than those in Turkey. Likewise, the Arabs in Turkey were distinctly different from those in the Saudi area. There is not a single Arab group that fits the criteria for a "nation" as the term is used in anthropology, nor has there ever been.


The Jews were not the only people that went through a lot in WWII, many communists, homosexuals, and gypsies were also killed, millions of them in fact. However it is the jews who complain the most and act as if they were the only people killed during the holocaust.


The vast majority of those killed were Jews. It wasn't 6 million homosexuals killed, or 6 million gypsies. Communism isn't even an ethnicity, as Jewishness and Roma is. People who try to detract from the fact that the Jews were the primary victims in the holocaust demonstrate anti-Semitism, as we see here.

Now IDF, try to justify the fact that Israel is twice the size of the British mandate, the majority of it was not purchased by pre-israeli jews, and that it is commiting countless war crimes and justifies it by saying "we were killed during the holocaust in world war 2, we are allowed to treat others like dirt, and dont complain, or else you are an anti-semite and support hitler!"

It isn't twice the size as the British Mandate. The British Mandate included the entire up to the Jordan river. All of the area today that is the Palestinian territories was included in the British Mandate to be the Jewish State.

I'd also like to point out that no one has ever proven a single "war crime" of Israel. Rather, people read about things they don't like, and then subjectively call it a "war crime." Maybe when someone can actually show one of these war criminals who was convicted of a war crime, then this will be taken seriously. However, falsely accusing Jews of war crimes sounds like anti-Semitism too.

this brings me to another point, Israel is an ethnocentric country, a style of apartheid and exclusion of minorities. Israel is a direct link with jews, so if youre not a jew, well then you cannot be a full israeli. There is in fact discrimination against ethiopian and russian jews in israel, the ones that were there first. This shows that the problems in Palestine started not with jews in general, but with the arrogance of the immigrant jews from europe who treat even the original jews as second-class citizens.

It doesn't sound like you understand Apartheid well. Apartheid was a legal system of arbitray racial exclusion. There is no legislation in Israel that excludes people on the basis of arbitray racial classifications. There is no legislation in Israel that would exclude any person on the basis of race from being a "full citizen."

Every country has discrimination. Saying "there is discrimination, so its Apartheid" would be like saying that the USA or Europe are Apartheid states because Black people are discriminated, paid less, hold less education, make up the majority of the prison populations, etc. The fact is, discrimination exists, but it is not a result of the State. It is a result of the social situation, and it is no more extreme in Israel than it is in any other country.

When persons single out Israel, when other Western countries are not put on par, that is an example of anti-Semitism too.

Victory in war does not give anyone a "right" to a country. Not the United States, nor any other country on the planet.

Note also that the second Arab-Israeli war, the 1956 Sinai Campaign, was begun by Israel and not by the Arab states.

no not a right per say, but its a whole helluva lot better then to just say ther're their own country.
and yes isreal did start that war with the help of france and england i belive.
they won and eventually gave up most of the gained land they didnt have to give it back. but they did.

So your for the revival of the prussian state? Take that land that poland has and give it back to the rightful owners?

No, I am in favor of the destruction of all states, except perhaps a minimal structure based upon democratic participatory workers' councils. More relevantly, I am in favor of self-determination, and that preference applies to all peoples, wherever they happen to be located.

The Palestinians deserve self-determination, and if that can be partially fulfilled by granting them their own state over the West Bank and Gaza, I will support that.

No, Israelis arent innocent, nor are the people who support them. They all have the blood of innocent palestinians on their hands. This is why it justifiable to kill "innocent" civilians in Israel through martyr attacks. Those who agree with Israel's policies of violence and murder should expect to be the target of violence.

Alright, I just wanted to verify this.

It seemms that "The UN abassadorship" supports terrorism and the murder of innocent Israeli women and babies.

No, I am in favor of the destruction of all states, except perhaps a minimal structure based upon democratic participatory workers' councils. More relevantly, I am in favor of self-determination, and that preference applies to all peoples, wherever they happen to be located.

The Palestinians deserve self-determination, and if that can be partially fulfilled by granting them their own state over the West Bank and Gaza, I will support that.

Well the Prussians deserve self determination don't they? They were kicked out of their land just like the Palestinians and that land was given to the Polish. So then shouldn't they be allowed to have their land back because the fact that they lost the war isn't a legitimate reason to take away their land?

It doesn't sound like you understand Apartheid well. Apartheid was a legal system of arbitray racial exclusion. There is no legislation in Israel that excludes people on the basis of arbitray racial classifications. There is no legislation in Israel that would exclude any person on the basis of race from being a "full citizen."

Every country has discrimination. Saying "there is discrimination, so its Apartheid" would be like saying that the USA or Europe are Apartheid states because Black people are discriminated, paid less, hold less education, make up the majority of the prison populations, etc. The fact is, discrimination exists, but it is not a result of the State. It is a result of the social situation, and it is no more extreme in Israel than it is in any other country.

When persons single out Israel, when other Western countries are not put on par, that is an example of anti-Semitism too.

Discrimination against the Arab minority in Israel is systematic and institutional, and is tacitly if not explicitly supported by state policy, especially in terms of land and development. It is significantly more extreme than what racial minorities in the US or Europe face.

Singling out Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitic, justified or not. Perhaps they have a bias against it for other reasons.

Well the Prussians deserve self determination don't they? They were kicked out of their land just like the Palestinians and that land was given to the Polish. So then shouldn't they be allowed to have their land back because the fact that they lost the war isn't a legitimate reason to take away their land?

If the descendants of the Prussians who were kicked out wish to return, I support their right to do so. The Prussians still in Poland are, I would assume, citizens of Poland and capable of participation in government, unlike the Palestinians, and thus have at least partial self-determination as it is. If they wished to secede and form their own state, and had a strong majority in the relevant territories supporting the move, I might support it as well, assuming that it was not merely an excuse to monopolize access to resources.

Palestinians are Semites.
I simply oppose the state of Israel and have no beef with the Jewish people.

I'd just like to point out that the term anti-Semite in modern usage refers only to those against Jews. Although, yes, Arabs are Semitic as well (as are a number of other ethnic groups), the term anti-Semite isn't used in reference to those who are anti-Arab. The American Heritage definition defines it as thus:

"One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews."

So really, its a Jew-specific term. When we say anti-Semitic, we're referring to being against Jews. And being against Arabs in general, although its racist and wrong, is not anti-Semitic.

And being against Israel for the wrong reason can be considered anti-Semitic. To begin, Israel is a Jewish State. The ADL defines anti-Israelism as anti-Semitism on a number of criteria, but I won't get into it.

And being against Israel for the wrong reason can be considered anti-Semitic. To begin, Israel is a Jewish State.

What if that "wrong reason" has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism?

The ADL defines anti-Israelism as anti-Semitism on a number of criteria, but I won't get into it.

The ADL can accuse its enemies of whatever motives it comes up with; that does not make its accusations justified.

What if that "wrong reason" has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism?

The ADL can accuse its enemies of whatever motives it comes up with; that does not make its accusations justified.

I would keep in mind what anti-Semitism is defined as:

One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.

Israel is the Jewish State. If you discriminate against, or you are hostile toward, or predjudice against the Jewish State, then you are being anti-Semitic by definition.

The ADL is also a humanitiarian, human-rights group. I guess we could go outside of humanitiarian standards and create our own arbitrary ones as they fit, so we can say things like "they can accuse their enemies" and "that does not make its accusations justified." Of course, the only persons I've ever seen clash heads with the ADL tend to be anti-Semites as well.

If the descendants of the Prussians who were kicked out wish to return, I support their right to do so. The Prussians still in Poland are, I would assume, citizens of Poland and capable of participation in government, unlike the Palestinians, and thus have at least partial self-determination as it is. If they wished to secede and form their own state, and had a strong majority in the relevant territories supporting the move, I might support it as well, assuming that it was not merely an excuse to monopolize access to resources.

Well then that brings in an interesting question. You have two groups of people living in the same area and they want distinctly different things. What do they do?

I would keep in mind what anti-Semitism is defined as:

One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.

Israel is the Jewish State. If you discriminate against, or you are hostile toward, or predjudice against the Jewish State, then you are being anti-Semitic by definition.

The ADL is also a humanitiarian, human-rights group. I guess we could go outside of humanitiarian standards and create our own arbitrary ones as they fit, so we can say things like "they can accuse their enemies" and "that does not make its accusations justified." Of course, the only persons I've ever seen clash heads with the ADL tend to be anti-Semites as well.
That definition is bullshit. That would mean any critcism is anti-semitic.

That definition is bullshit. That would mean any critcism is anti-semitic.

Write a letter to the American Heritage dictionary and tell them.

Until then, I'll use the real definition of words, and you can make up your own I guess.

I would keep in mind what anti-Semitism is defined as:

One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.

Israel is the Jewish State. If you discriminate against, or you are hostile toward, or predjudice against the Jewish State, then you are being anti-Semitic by definition.

No, you're not. If you discriminate against, or you are hostile toward, or prejudiced against the Jews, then you are being anti-Semitic by definition. If you are prejudiced against the Jewish State because it is Jewish as opposed to some other national identity, then you are indeed anti-Semitic.

The ADL is also a humanitiarian, human-rights group.

I am familiar with the Anti-Defamation League, and with its horrendous record on this issue. Neo-fascists like Silvio Berlusconi and a Jewish civil rights group should not exactly be close allies, but support for Israeli repression makes strange bedfellows.

I guess we could go outside of humanitiarian standards and create our own arbitrary ones as they fit,

Like the ADL, you mean?

so we can say things like "they can accuse their enemies" and "that does not make its accusations justified."

I have absolutely no idea as to what you mean by this statement.

Of course, the only persons I've ever seen clash heads with the ADL tend to be anti-Semites as well.

If everyone who dislikes the ADL is an anti-Semite, then I must be self-loathing. Oh, well; I have good company, I suppose. Better Noam Chomsky than Abraham Foxman.

Write a letter to the American Heritage dictionary and tell them.

Until then, I'll use the real definition of words, and you can make up your own I guess.

He means that by being against Israel itself, though it may be a Judaic state, that doesn't mean he has anything against jews themselves or the jewish religion, but simply the militaristic and political actions of the government which runs the state.

It has nothing to do with their religion, but their actions.

Write a letter to the American Heritage dictionary and tell them.

Until then, I'll use the real definition of words, and you can make up your own I guess.

You are not using the "real definition of words." You are extending a definition from the dictionary far beyond its logical boundaries by equating prejudice against Jews with prejudice against a state that happens to call itself Jewish. They are not the same. Neturei Karta, to take one example of many, is not anti-Semitic.

ok, lets clear up wat a mandate is before i proceed. A mandate was what the league of nations used so that the victors of World War I could look after confiscated colonies of the losers of the war, so in fact the land was not Britains, britain was looking after it until it was time for a peaceful transition to the rightful owners, the arabs, however britain was chosen to be the caretakers of the area.

You fail to see that it does not matter whether or not this is the state of palestine or whatever, but the arabs had been living there for thousands of years, the jews had left for thousands of years and suddenly decided they wished to return.

By before 1900, i was being a bit loose with the date, i forgot the first aliyah. my point was that there were very few jews before the aliyahs. Also, you are obviously very intelligent, because when i tell u that there was no violence against jews before the 1900s, you put in sources that show there was violence, but after the year 1900, after they decided they wanted a jewish state.

There is nothing wrong with my analogy, the point still comes through, obviously however some people have an iq below 90 and require explicit information, so lets pretend there was no such country as mexico and these immigrants wanted to use southern USA to create a mexico, happy?

arabs were biased against israel because israel was cutting away a sector of the arab world, they have all the reason to be against israel.

I find it hard to believe that there is more violence against jews in france when there is a suicide bombing every week in israel.

Youre an idiot, the "civilized" world does not support israel, only america and britain do. the rest of the "civilized" world does not say anything in order not to upset their alliances with those two countries.

The british had a motive to not protect the jews, and that was the jewish attacks on the british and arabs.

Persians and turks are not arabs...that just shows how ignorant you are. And yes they were all a single nation, name the nations existing before

Yes Jews were the majority of those killed, but not a "vast" majority. 11 million were killed during the holocaust, so they are in fact only a slight majority, however they act like they were the only ones killed in the holocaust, you missed my point.

i wrote my setence incorrectly, it was meant to say that israel is twice the size of the land the jews were given by the british mandate.

Whether or not in legistlature, it does not take a brain surgeon to find that, in practice, there is an oppresive force created by fresh off the boat jews against the original people of the land.

I am against israel, not the jews, so that is not anti-semitism, because being anti-semetic means hating myself, because im an arab.

People like you do not understand anything unless it is spelled out for them, you try to attack minor inconsistencies in my article (which i wrote off the top of my head) while the entire point of my arguements goes amiss, and you pulled the anti-semetic card, a sign of weakness as you cannot debate using solid arguement points, and so you resort to name calling.

One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.

Israel is the Jewish State. If you discriminate against, or you are hostile toward, or predjudice against the Jewish State, then you are being anti-Semitic by definition.
No.

You are anti-semitic, when your reason for being against Israel is that the place is Jewish. In other words, if there were another country exactly like Israel but not Jewish, and you'd support that but not Israel - then you would be anti-semitic.

If you are simply against Israel because you always go for the underdog, or because you don't feel that a GDP per capita of more than $20,000 for the Israelis, and $600 for Gaza, is justified when the situation is being kept that way by force of arms, or if you are against Israel for any other reason that does not single out the Jewish nature of the state, then you are not being anti-semitic.

France has the highest rate of anti-Semitic attacks. Its the most dangerous place for Jews.
Quick question: Would you rather live in France, or in Syria?

http://mondediplo.com/2002/12/14antisemitism
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=3579288
http://www.crif.org/index.php?page=articles_display/detail&aid=3360&returnto=search/search&artyd=58
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=6650

You are not using the "real definition of words." You are extending a definition from the dictionary far beyond its logical boundaries by equating prejudice against Jews with prejudice against a state that happens to call itself Jewish. They are not the same. Neturei Karta, to take one example of many, is not anti-Semitic.

Neturei Karta reminds me of a story. A boy went and asked his rabbi if he could play baseball on the sabbath, and the rabbi told him no. So he went and asked another, who told him no. Then another, who said no. Then another, and another. He kept asking further and further, until he finally found one who said yes. Then he went back and told his parents, "See, the rabbis agree with me!"

Neturei Karta doesn't represent Judaism. They have a few thousand members tops, and are oppossed by Jewish groups worldwide. They were also linked to the terrorist Arafat. Bringing up Neturei Karta demonstrates your severe lack of knowledge about Israel, Zionism, and Orthodoxy. It would be like me using al-Qaeda to argue something about Islam.

And to state that if you don't support the Jewish State, then you don't support the Jewish people, is not illogical in any way. A Jew that doesn't support a homeland for the Jewish people can't be said to support the Jewish people. And a non-Jew that doesn't support a homeland for the Jewish people can't be said to support the Jewish people, either.

Neturei Karta doesn't represent Judaism.
I don't think that was his point. His point was that Neturei Karta is not antisemitic, which you failed to address.

And to state that if you don't support the Jewish State, then you don't support the Jewish people, is not illogical in any way.
That's silly.

I think you're in denial as to what Zionism is. It's German Romatic Nationalism. It was started by German Romantic Nationalists. Everything about it is just that.
It's the same thing that found its final completion in WWI, just exported into the Middle East of the mid-20th century.

Neturei Karta reminds me of a story. A boy went and asked his rabbi if he could play baseball on the sabbath, and the rabbi told him no. So he went and asked another, who told him no. Then another, who said no. Then another, and another. He kept asking further and further, until he finally found one who said yes. Then he went back and told his parents, "See, the rabbis agree with me!"

Neturei Karta doesn't represent Judaism. They have a few thousand members tops, and are oppossed by Jewish groups worldwide. They were also linked to the terrorist Arafat.

Bringing up Neturei Karta demonstrates your severe lack of knowledge about Israel, Zionism, and Orthodoxy. It would be like me using al-Qaeda to argue something about Islam.

Since the only reason I brought up Neturei Karta was to cite an example of a group unfairly prejudiced against Israel (hardly a complimentary characterization) that was nevertheless not anti-Semitic, absolutely none of that has a shred of relevance.

I made no claim that it was representative of Judaism or Jewry, Orthodox or otherwise.

And to state that if you don't support the Jewish State, then you don't support the Jewish people, is not illogical in any way. A Jew that doesn't support a homeland for the Jewish people can't be said to support the Jewish people. And a non-Jew that doesn't support a homeland for the Jewish people can't be said to support the Jewish people, either.

Why? The Jewish people and the Jewish state are distinct entities. There are plenty of excellent reasons to oppose the latter that do not apply to the former.

Your logic of Jews = Israel simply plays into the hands of the real anti-Semites, who are delighted to seize the opportunity to associate all Jews with Israeli repression and tyranny.

ok, lets clear up wat a mandate is before i proceed. A mandate was what the league of nations used so that the victors of World War I could look after confiscated colonies of the losers of the war, so in fact the land was not Britains, britain was looking after it until it was time for a peaceful transition to the rightful owners, the arabs, however britain was chosen to be the caretakers of the area.

There was no country or nation called "Arabs" that owned this land. The land originally belonged to the Ottoman Empire, which was gone. Thus, it didn't legally belong to any Arab group any more than it belonged to the Brits.

You fail to see that it does not matter whether or not this is the state of palestine or whatever, but the arabs had been living there for thousands of years, the jews had left for thousands of years and suddenly decided they wished to return.

The Arabs could have continued to live there. The original plan that was proposed was for a Jewish State to be formed with Arabs to remain exactly where they were. However, the Arabs were obsessed with fears of displacement and a hatred of the Jews. However, during these first aliyahs Arabs were not forced off of their land or displaced. From the same source I quoted in the last post, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict", Michael Bard PhD cites:

"Althought for the next half-century [1900-1950] the Arabs would claim that the Jews were forcing them out of theirr land because, they argued, there was not enough room for both peoples, the truth was quite the contrary." (65)

By before 1900, i was being a bit loose with the date, i forgot the first aliyah. my point was that there were very few jews before the aliyahs. Also, you are obviously very intelligent, because when i tell u that there was no violence against jews before the 1900s, you put in sources that show there was violence, but after the year 1900, after they decided they wanted a jewish state.


I'm not sure how far back you'd like me to go, but Arab violence against Jews existed all throughout the Middle Ages. Bard notes:

"When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, anti-Semitism would surface, often with devastating results: On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was Crucified by an Arab mob htat proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of teh city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riotw as incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as an inordinate Jewish political power.

Other massacres of Jews in Arab lands occured throught the Middle East and particularly in North Africa. Decrees of ordering the destruction of synaggogues were enacted in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Despite the Koran's prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen, Morocco, and Baghdad." (56)

So perhaps if Arabs weren't killing off Jews and forecfully converting them to Islam for the better part of a thousand years, there would have been a larger Jewish population in the Middle East come the 20th century.


There is nothing wrong with my analogy, the point still comes through, obviously however some people have an iq below 90 and require explicit information, so lets pretend there was no such country as mexico and these immigrants wanted to use southern USA to create a mexico, happy?


Well, there was something wrong with your analogy. I was trying to be nice, but it commits the fallacy of weak/questionable analogy. For one thing to be inferred about another, the two things must be similiar enough to reasonably make such an inference. The southern states in the USA are not similiar enough to infer anything about the British Mandate of Palestine.

arabs were biased against israel because israel was cutting away a sector of the arab world, they have all the reason to be against israel.

No, they weren't, as Bard stated above. He also stated, "For many centuries, Palestine was a sparesly populated, poorly cultivated, and widely neglected expanse of eroded hills, sandy deserts, and malarial marshes." (65) Jews didn't cut away any sector of the Arab world. They went and settled on unused land, without displacing any Arabs, and turned it into the best land in the entire Middle East.

Youre an idiot, the "civilized" world does not support israel, only america and britain do. the rest of the "civilized" world does not say anything in order not to upset their alliances with those two countries.

This was in reference to the UN vote for Israel's statehood. And the vote proved otherwise.

The british had a motive to not protect the jews, and that was the jewish attacks on the british and arabs.

What Jewish attacks on the British? This was before the Israeli defense groups, like the Hagganah. You've yet to demonstrate that any such attacks have occured.

Persians and turks are not arabs...that just shows how ignorant you are. And yes they were all a single nation, name the nations existing before

The nations that existed before what? There never was a nation called "the Arabs." It was a term given to persons who originated from Arabia and later extended to other ethnic groups within the Middle East. The fact is, its always been such a broad term that it can't refer to only one ethnic group or nationality alone. Wikipedia notes one definition as being:

Someone who considers him or herself to be an Arab (regardless of racial or ethnic origin) and is recognized as such by others.

And cites a hadith as stating, "Being an Arab is not because of your father or mother, but being an Arab is on account of your tongue. Whoever speaks Arabic is an Arab."

So I would bet all of those devout Islamic Arabic speaking Persians and Turks would disagree with you that they aren't Arabs. Same with all of those Iraqis who, for whatever reason, speak Farsi rather than Arabic like their Iranian neighbors.

Yes Jews were the majority of those killed, but not a "vast" majority. 11 million were killed during the holocaust, so they are in fact only a slight majority, however they act like they were the only ones killed in the holocaust, you missed my point.

The term "holocaust" technically only refers to Jews systematically exterminated under Hitler. It does not include those killed in WW2 outside of this. So really, it would be incorrect to say that anyone except Jews were killed in the holocaust. The rest killed as a result of Hitler were victims, but not of the holocaust.


i wrote my setence incorrectly, it was meant to say that israel is twice the size of the land the jews were given by the british mandate.

Thats not true either. The British Mandate granted land for a Jewish State that includes the entire west bank, golan heights, and gaza strip area. The whole area of the "Palestinian territories" that exists right now was land granted to from the Jewish State in the British Mandate. It was everything east of the Jordan river.

Whether or not in legistlature, it does not take a brain surgeon to find that, in practice, there is an oppresive force created by fresh off the boat jews against the original people of the land.

I see, so you reject the law, and the fact that the Jews legally own the land, for your subjective feeling that its an "oppresive force."

I am against israel, not the jews, so that is not anti-semitism, because being anti-semetic means hating myself, because im an arab.

Anti-Semitism is a term used only in reference to Jews, as I stated in a previous post. Look the word up in the dictionary. Yes, you can be an anti-Semite and be an Arab.

I don't think that was his point. His point was that Neturei Karta is not antisemitic, which you failed to address.

Maybe I didn't address it. It is anti-Semitic.

These are self-hating Jews who have been condemned by practically the entire Jewish world. They are terrorist sympathizers and were supporters of Arafat.

Failure to support the existence of a Jewish state is a failure to support the Jewish people, as well. This is also anti-Semitic.

You can keep calling anything you don't like anti-semitic, but that doesn't make it any more true.

You can keep calling anything you don't like anti-semitic, but that doesn't make it any more true.

No, me calling something anti-Semitic doesn't make it true. The fact that it fits the criteria does. However, when I listed the definition from the dictionary you stated "that definition is bullshit." So I don't expect you to believe anything is anti-Semitic when it actually fits the definition.

And cites a hadith as stating, "Being an Arab is not because of your father or mother, but being an Arab is on account of your tongue. Whoever speaks Arabic is an Arab."

So I would bet all of those devout Islamic Arabic speaking Persians and Turks would disagree with you that they aren't Arabs. Same with all of those Iraqis who, for whatever reason, speak Farsi rather than Arabic like their Iranian neighbors.
Ahem...Turks speak Turkish. I have been around a lot of Turks in my time - and the suggestion that they are Arabs can make them quite angry.
Iranians speak Farsi (and many are starting to call it "Parsi" as the nationalists are starting to form ties with the ancient Persian Empires), Kurdish or Azeri, because they are Iranians or Kurds or Azeris, not Arabs. They come from a different ethnic group.

Many Muslims also speak Arabic, because that is what the original version of the Q'uran is written in. But that doesn't make them Arabic, just as I wouldn't be Jewish if I learn to speak Hebrew (or Jiddish, for that matter, which borrows a lot from German).

Maybe I didn't address it. It is anti-Semitic.

These are self-hating Jews who have been condemned by practically the entire Jewish world. They are terrorist sympathizers and were supporters of Arafat.

Failure to support the existence of a Jewish state is a failure to support the Jewish people, as well. This is also anti-Semitic.

They could indeed be considered terrorist sympathizers, but they are hardly self-hating. They have a certain view of Jewish law, one supported by certain Talmudic passages, and there is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic about that view.

I think your argument has transgressed the border of absurdity at this point.

What about anarchists? What about those opposed to any state founded on the basis of national identity? What about globalists opposed to any state but a world state? What about those who reject the right to immigrate? What about those who see the Zionist project as unwise? Are they also anti-Semitic?

Failure to support the existence of a Jewish state is a failure to support the Jewish people, as well.
And this is what you keep asserting, yet so far have failed to prove.

Because I don't support a Kurdistan, does that mean I hate the Kurds?
Because I don't support a Hmong State, does that mean I hate the Hmong?
Because I don't support South Ossetia, does that mean I hate Ossetians?

Let's say, for a moment, that BOTH sides are doing things wrong, and they don't like each other. I think we could agree with that statement, right? Usually, someone does something against the other, and the other retaliates. Got it. But I was thinking--is there ONE thing that either side could have NOT done to change the WHOLE PICTURE of the issue?

So I thought, and I think I figured it out: Israel screwed up when it attacked first in 1967.

That year was the year of the Six-Day War, and Egypt and Syria (particularly Egypt) were gearing up for another show-down with Israel. Israel saw this, and attacked FIRST, catching Egypt off guard. Israel went on to whoop ass. Palestinians were displaced, and now they want their land back.

But what if Israel just had waited for Nasser to attack? Then, all of the above would have still taken place--at least the whooping ass part--but the Palestinians wouldn't currently have a leg to stand on. Let's face it, if Israel had been the attackee instead the of the attacker in 1967, there's absolutely NO WAY the Palestinians would have a moral leg to prop up on. Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is certainly shameful, but the Arab nations' inaction to help the Palestinian people in their countries would probably be looked a bit harsher on by the international community. The Intifada and other revolutionary movements led by Arafat and others would have been looked at as 'here the Arabs go again...trying to chase Israel into the Med. Sea...' And lastly, Israel would have no moral obligation to allow a Palestinian State.

Just a thought, but IMO, it's interesting to see how just a slight difference of occurence could have helped out Israel tremendously.

Jews didn't cut away any sector of the Arab world. They went and settled on unused land, without displacing any Arabs, and turned it into the best land in the entire Middle East.

The land was most certainly "used." The Palestinian Arabs were living there, as they had for centuries. To deny this is delusional, as is to deny that many were displaced.

Thats not true either. The British Mandate granted land for a Jewish State that includes the entire west bank, golan heights, and gaza strip area. The whole area of the "Palestinian territories" that exists right now was land granted to from the Jewish State in the British Mandate. It was everything east of the Jordan river.

As I recall, the Balfour Declaration made no explicit territorial guarantees. It merely affirmed a vague British support for the Zionist project.

What about anarchists? What about those opposed to any state founded on the basis of national identity? What about globalists opposed to any state but a world state? What about those who reject the right to immigrate? What about those who see the Zionist project as unwise? Are they also anti-Semitic?

Anarchists, no, because they opposte all states. The same with globalists. Any person who adheres to an objective principle, rather than a subjective one against Israel, could be excluded. If someone objected against the right to immigrate in any situation under any circumstances, then they couldn't be said to be anti-Semitic due to their lack of support for Israeli immigration.

People who see the Zionist project as unwise may have to be evaluated on an individual basis. But if they don't support the existing state of Israel's right to exist, that is a form of anti-Semitism.


And this is what you keep asserting, yet so far have failed to prove.

Because I don't support a Kurdistan, does that mean I hate the Kurds?
Because I don't support a Hmong State, does that mean I hate the Hmong?
Because I don't support South Ossetia, does that mean I hate Ossetians?

I can't state anything about any other ethnic group. Remember, for an analogy to be valid, the two things in question must be similiar enough for one thing to be inferred about the latter from the former. Unless these groups have a state already, the analogy fails to begin with. Unless these groups have been persecuted for 2000+ years, they fail. Unless 6 million persons in these ethnic groups have been systematically killed, the analogy fails.

This is why we have ethnic-specific terms like anti-Semitism, but not anti-Kurdism.

But what if Israel just had waited for Nasser to attack?
Maybe it wouldn't have happened, and they might not have gotten to take Jerusalem...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9203116&postcount=87

Any person who adheres to an objective principle, rather than a subjective one against Israel, could be excluded.

It is an objective principle to state that one is opposed to all states with Jewish governments, but nevertheless it is anti-Semitic.

It is a subjective principle to state that one hates Israel because one hates how difficult it is for non-Hebrew speakers to spell, but it is not anti-Semitic.

I can't state anything about any other ethnic group.
Then state and prove something about this one.

And for your information...the Kurds have been persecuted, harrassed and generally mistreated for many, many years.

This is why we have ethnic-specific terms like anti-Semitism, but not anti-Kurdism.
We have that term because Jews lived in Europe, and Kurds didn't.

The land was most certainly "used." The Palestinian Arabs were living there, as they had for centuries. To deny this is delusional, as is to deny that many were displaced.

I think I've already demonstrated otherwise. I'll go ahead and cite it again, if you missed it, from Mitcheel G. Bard, PhD.'s "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict":

"Although for the next-half century [1900-1950] the Arabs would claim that the Jews were forcing them out of their land because, they argued, there was not enough room for both peoples, the truth was quite contrary. In fact, for many centuries, Palestine was a sparsely popualted, poorly cultivated, and widely neglected expanse ofe roded hills, sandy deserts, and malarial marshes." (65)

About the second aliyah Bard wrote, "The Arabs weren't happy with jewish immigration becase they believed it would lead to their displacement from Palestine. This assumption simply was not the case, and subsequent history would prove it." (69)

Oh, I don't doubt it a bit. Nasser had to know, however, that gathering on the Israeli border would give Israel reason to attack. Jordan got caught in the crossfire, if I remember correctly, and of course a primary goal was to take the Old City.

Still, the question is this: What if Nasser had attacked first? A prequel to that question could be: Why was Nasser gathering troops on the border if NOT to attack Israel?

I think I've already demonstrated otherwise. I'll go ahead and cite it again, if you missed it, from Mitcheel G. Bard, PhD.'s "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict":

"Although for the next-half century [1900-1950] the Arabs would claim that the Jews were forcing them out of their land because, they argued, there was not enough room for both peoples, the truth was quite contrary. In fact, for many centuries, Palestine was a sparsely popualted, poorly cultivated, and widely neglected expanse ofe roded hills, sandy deserts, and malarial marshes." (65)

About the second aliyah Bard wrote, "The Arabs weren't happy with jewish immigration becase they believed it would lead to their displacement from Palestine. This assumption simply was not the case, and subsequent history would prove it." (69)

Of course, all intelligent conversation MUST include a quote from "The Complete Idiot's Guide...".

...Mitchell G. Bard, PhD.'s...
*Feels obliged to make everyone aware that Bard is the director of the Jewish Virtual Library and primarily a lobbyist for groups like AICE and AIPAC*

*Feels obliged to make everyone aware that Bard is the director of the Jewish Virtual Library and primarily a lobbyist for groups like AICE and AIPAC*

*Feels obliged to make everyone aware that this is the fallacy of poisoning the well* :cool:

I think I've already demonstrated otherwise. I'll go ahead and cite it again, if you missed it, from Mitcheel G. Bard, PhD.'s "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict":

"Although for the next-half century [1900-1950] the Arabs would claim that the Jews were forcing them out of their land because, they argued, there was not enough room for both peoples, the truth was quite contrary. In fact, for many centuries, Palestine was a sparsely popualted, poorly cultivated, and widely neglected expanse ofe roded hills, sandy deserts, and malarial marshes." (65)

About the second aliyah Bard wrote, "The Arabs weren't happy with jewish immigration becase they believed it would lead to their displacement from Palestine. This assumption simply was not the case, and subsequent history would prove it." (69)

I don't care what Bard said. His Myths and Facts was not worth the paper it was written on, and his other propagandistic polemics seem little better.

The fact of the matter is, as the serious historical record indicates, that the land was both occupied and that, both through the purchase of territory from absentee landlords and through the forcible expulsions of the first Arab-Israeli War, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were indeed displaced. The necessity for this displacement was understood by much of the Zionist leadership as soon as serious conflict with the indigenous population began.

*Feels obliged to make everyone aware that this is the fallacy of poisoning the well* :cool:
Hey, I'm not saying that he's wrong. I just feel that in a topic like this, one needs to know exactly where a piece of info is coming from.

If I was to start posting arguments from David Irving, you'd make a note of that as well.

*knows nothing, but puts in his two cents*

You know there was originally going to be a Jewish, an Arab and a Kurdish state, right? What happened to the Kurds' state? Palestinians not getting justice my ass.

I'm not especially "against Israel," but I am very critical of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, and expansionistic policies in general. I'll address IOF's points, though.

First off, I have no problem with large numbers of Jews moving into the Middle East, rebuilding the Jewish community after its shattering in HaShoah (literally, "the calamity," i.e. the Holocaust, for those of you who don't speak Hebrew), and even setting up a state on land that is unoccupied or purchased from its owners. I'll even agree that the British screwed over their Jewish allies by shipping several million back to Hitler's camps, and letting Arabs murder the ones who weren't shipped back.

First of all, I must point out that people in the mold of Haj Amin al-Husayni are not representative of Palestinian Arabs in general, and certainly not of modern Palestinians. Few, if any, Arabs have any problem with the Jews based on their ethnicity, in fact, even HAMAS has stated (in Article 6 of their charter) that "under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned." This is a far cry from the desire of the extremist al-Husayni to "push the Jews into the sea."

All right, I've established that I believe that Israel has a right to exist, and I've conceded most of IOF's points. Now, I'll put on my Anti-Semite hat and get to the point. Israel was created in 1948, and was then a perfectly legitimate entity, with as much right to exist as the US. The Arabs attacked Israel, and Israel managed to hold the attackers off until a UN-mediated peace proposal was formed in 1949, at which time they expanded their borders into what was then part of Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. (Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements - see map)

Seeing the swastika on my forehead yet? 18 years later, in 1967, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran, which created a territorial dispute with Israel, as blockading is an act of war. The Israelis were provoked, but they reacted with disproportionate force, seizing Egyptian land, as well as the Syrian Heights and the West Bank. The conflicts in the West Bank that continue to this day are the focal points for much of the international opprobrium focused on Israel. While the Israelis were justified in using force to break the blockade, and even pre-emptive attacks on Egyptian military targets, taking over the Gaza Strip (from where they have only recently withdrawn), imposing occupation on the Syrian Heights and West Bank, and putting settlers into the West Bank and Gaza are over the top.

Now, if it wasn't already obvious that I am a rabid Nazi, who is busy praying to my little statue of Adolph Hitler for the eradication of the Jewish people, I will state my agreement with the principles of UNSCR 497, which condemned the occupation of the Syrian Heights and the imposition of Israeli military laws. UNSCR 497 only refrains from using the words "annexed" or "conquered" for fear that the US would have vetoed it if it used stronger wording. Defensive wars are NOT supposed to add land to the nation on the defensive.

Today, in the West Bank, the IOF, among other atrocities, continues to make incursions into Arab settlements, conduct "targeted killings" with helicopter gunships, which risk civilian casualties, bulldoze homes (they only stopped bulldozing suicide bombers' homes recently, after they realized punishing the families of bombers wasn't going to stop them, and they'd taken too much international criticism for running a girl down with a bulldozer and killing her.)

*takes off his Anti-Semite hat.*

Now, that was a long post, it took me over an hour. By the way, in case someone couldn't tell, I am not a Nazi, I was being sarcastic.

What happened to the Kurds' state?
Well, in Turkey, the Kurds are second-class citizens. In Iraq, the Kurds were being gassed. In Iran, the Kurds don't have the same sort of representation and their religion was persecuted.

And in the West, Kurdish independence movements are on the list of Terrorist Organisations.

Well, in Turkey, the Kurds are second-class citizens. In Iraq, the Kurds were being gassed. In Iran, the Kurds don't have the same sort of representation and their religion was persecuted.

And in the West, Kurdish independence movements are on the list of Terrorist Organisations.

It was a rhetorical question; I know that they're in the shit. I was just pointing out that the Arabs are just being whiny.

I was just pointing out that the Arabs are just being whiny.
Well, you can take that both ways, I suppose. My view would be that the Kurds have just as much right and justification for their own state as the Jews.

"
The violence against Jews in Palestine had been ongoing for centuries. Jews had been living in Jerusalem and Safed continuously for millenia. For the last few centuries, the Jews of Safed had been enduring abuse from Muslims inspired by radical clerics. The Jews of Safed were ultra-religious Kabalists who never struck back. .

The Jews of Safed were attacked in 1819, 1833-34 and in 1929. As theyd been living there since time immemorial thats hardly a "few centuries" of abuse. The most deadly thing to attack Jews in Safed was Plague.

"
When the Jews began to LEGALLY return to the land after fleeing the Pales of Russia in the 1st Aliyah, they bought the land from absentee Arab landowners living elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire. They started the first kibbutzim on this land. The Arabs attacked and raided the Kibbutzim on a regular basis..

And by 1946 theyd bought 6% of the land. In addition, should mexicans start arriving in California, buying land and setting up strange communal farms with the overt and expressed purpose of taking over the state and making it Mexicos once more, what kind of reaction do you think thered be?



The British of course made the Balfour Declaration, which was a legal promise to a Jewish state in Israel, in 1917 during WWI to reward Jewish support of the British war effort. ..

The balfour declaration does not nor did not have the force of Law, it was a statement of British Government policy which was "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."

Had it the force of law, the latter section (which I have in bold) would be rather a bane to the state of Israel as it stands today.



There was another large scale Arab riot in 1929. The riots killed hundreds of Jews and injured thousands more. The riots began because the Arabs watned the Jews to be barred from going to their holiest spot, the Western Wall. The British stood by and let this all happen. They were appeasing the Arab population and let them try to destroy the Jews. The Peel commission placed full blame on the Arabs
In the 1930s, a new immigration wave of Jews came into the land. They were German Jews who were fleeing Hitler's Germany. The Arabs didn't want these Jews to come into the land. As a result, they began an uprising that lasted from 1936-1939. Britain appeased the Arabs once again and turned dozens of large ships around sending them back to Germany. Britain and the Arabs had a huge part in condemning 6 million of my people to death....

The 1929 riots were actually investigated by the Shaw commission which concluded "racial animosity on the part of the Arabs, consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future." (my bold). As a result of this inquiry, in 1930 the decision was made to curtail Jewish immigration in order to lessen ethnic tensions. Three years later Hitler came to power in Germany thus leading to horrifice consequences from what was ostensibly a sensible descion. Your conclusions about the "appeasment" of the Arab revolt are therefore rather off the mark.

It was significant in that it marked the formation of the extremist Irgun, with its attacks and reprisals against civillians, and the change of Haggannah from a defensive to an offensive organisation. Furthermore the deaths of many Arab leaders, and the confiscation of weapons from the Arab population, ensured there was little foundation for resistance to the Nakba of 1948.


After the war, the UK continued to support the Palestinians and appease them. They forgave AL-Husseini and insured he was brought back to put down the Jews and hopefully keep them from getting a state. They did this despite the fact the Jews had paid a heavy price to help the British in the war.....

Whereas you are correct in stating that Arabs did indeed support the Germans ("the enemy of my enemy is my Friend") Aren't you forgetting the militant campaign against Arabs and to drive the British out ? The kidnaps, bombings and so forth?


The Jews did have some Arabs within their given territories. They invited the Arabs to stay on the land. The Arabs never accepted the partiion in the first place. They declared war on the Jews. The Mufti returned to lead the Arab armies in a quest to "throw the Jews into the sea" as he himself put it. [QUOTE]

The neigbouring Arab states attacked. The local Arab populations activities were marked by their absence on any great scale.

[QUOTE=IDF]
The Jews of course won the War of Liberation. Yes some Arabs were misplaced. Most by choice either because they didn't want to live under Jewish rule, or because they were asked by Arab leaders and expected to return after the swift Arab victory their leaders promised..

"We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal" (David Ben Gurion, 1936)

"{Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance.' (Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah)



Some were forced out during the war, it was tragic, but a higher number of Jews were kicked out by Arab countries like Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen in the aftermath of the war.

And mostly from North Africa, over the Period 1948 to 1967. Some left voluntarily but the majority were forced out due to Govermental or popular hostility. They often claim they are discriminated against by the Ashkhenazi majority.

horrah, an ally :D im assuming ur arabic?


o and lololololrofln00b, kurds are MUSLIM, lolololol they are getting persecuted 4 their religion. In iraq, the gassing has to be put in the context that they were giving iran intelligence during the iraq-iran war, because other wise kurds had it so sweet in iraq. they were given compensation payments, they were taught both kurdish and arabic in their schools, and were allowed to freely practice their culture, compared to the rest of the middle east, saddam was a hero for the kurds, but all they did is complain and create problems, like in every other country in the world

You are foolish to think that the Jews could live peacefully under Arab rule. The Arabs would kill them for no other reason than their religion. You don't know the history obviously. If you did, you would see the history of Jews under Arab rule.

More likely that you have it confused with the brutality of Christian rule.

"The Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain, also known as the Golden Age of Arab Rule in Spain, refers to a period of history during the Muslim occupation of Spain in which Jews were generally accepted in Spanish society and Jewish religious, cultural, and economic life blossomed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain

"
The Arabic word for religion is din, related to the Aramaic and Hebrew word for law. The Qur’an recognized religion as a pluralistic category.[xxxi] Judaism, Christianity, and the religion of the Sabians appear in the Qur’an as incomplete precursors of Islam, and thus accorded respect as “genuine if distorted”[xxxii] faiths. The Prophet cautioned against with dhimmi, but he also gave their worship status. The Qur’an reads “O you who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of one another.”[xxxiii] However, the eighth century Syrian jurist al-Awza‘i criticized the governor of Lebanon for cruelty towards the Jews reporting that the Prophet said such treatment would be recalled angrily on Judgment Day.[xxxiv] Muslims viewed the Jews and Christians as allies in the war against immoral paganism, and thus kindred, if not equal, faiths"
http://www.wm.edu/so/monitor/fall2000/paper7.htm

Nope, I only want to stop murder when its only innocent people.

if its not, its not murder.

Palestinians arnt innocent.

Hopeless case. Did some Palestinian run over your cat?


Lets start off with his original post. IDF, with your vast knowledge in history, you would know that the number of Jews in Palestine before the year 1900 was below 10 000..

His knowledge is below par for what one would expect for somebody with such strident views...or typical, depending which way you look at it. Yours seems no better, as the figure (though Ottoman stats are unreliable) was probably in the region of 20-40,000.


UNSCOP realised that partition was the only viable option because now the jews were the majority in the land, due to the illegal immigration...

Nope, to prevent conflict.


The "Complete Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict" by Mitchell G. Bard, PhD cites more raiding and attacks on Jews from Arabs than I could even list here. For example:...

Yet provides no examples of the Irgun or "stern gang" at work whatsover no doubt. As 4,000 Arabs and 400 Jews died between 1936 and 1939, I think we might draw our own conclsiuons as to who was under the cosh.


This is exactly why not a single Arab in the British Mandate owned any land - rather, it was owned by Britian, because it is, as you stated, "actually still owned by the government." :...

Do you do yoga? This is yet another contortion. First you fail to "correct" the poster who said it was purchased by emigres from absentee Arab landlords, athen forget your own claims re purchase, then seem to ignore the fact that political dominion does not abbroagate the ownership of private property. And most important of all why does the 1946 British survey list 94% of the land as Arab owned?


Israel is the Jewish State. If you discriminate against, or you are hostile toward, or predjudice against the Jewish State, then you are being anti-Semitic by definition.:...

According to the right wing lobby. Not according to the various Jewish groups against the occupation who don't want to be associated with the state of Israels activities.

"At the start of 2005, our signatories included six rabbis; 90 professors (including three Fellows of the Royal Society); 81 medical and academic doctors; three OBEs; several OBEs, CBEs and MBEs, two knights and three Members of Parliament.

The list includes Geoffrey Bindman, Stephen Fry, Eric Hobsbawm, Nicolas Kent, Mike Leigh, Miriam Margolyes, Jonathan Miller, Susie Orbach, Harold Pinter, Jacqueline Rose, Alexei Sayle, Avi Shlaim, Antony Sher, Gillian Slovo, Tom Stoppard, Janel Suzman and Zoë Wanamaker."

"Sharon cannot be allowed to speak for British Jews - he does not speak in our name.
Jews for Justice for Palestinians gives expression to the many alternative views within the community."
MICHAEL ROSEN

http://www.jfjfp.org/about.htm


Neturei Karta doesn't represent Judaism..:...

According to you. The opposite might also be said. Thats why bringing the invisible man into things is really rather pointless.

"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." - Thomas Friedman

PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING IF YOU ARE AGAINST ISRAEL
Besides Nazis and Muslim radicals, who is against Israel?

More likely that you have it confused with the brutality of Christian rule.

"The Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain, also known as the Golden Age of Arab Rule in Spain, refers to a period of history during the Muslim occupation of Spain in which Jews were generally accepted in Spanish society and Jewish religious, cultural, and economic life blossomed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain

The Arabs who ruled Spain in the Middle Ages are not the same, culturally, as the Arabs who ruled the Middle East in the 20th century.

What does Christianity have to do with this topic?

horrah, an ally :D im assuming ur arabic?


o and lololololrofln00b, kurds are MUSLIM, lolololol they are getting persecuted 4 their religion. In iraq, the gassing has to be put in the context that they were giving iran intelligence during the iraq-iran war, because other wise kurds had it so sweet in iraq. they were given compensation payments, they were taught both kurdish and arabic in their schools, and were allowed to freely practice their culture, compared to the rest of the middle east, saddam was a hero for the kurds, but all they did is complain and create problems, like in every other country in the world

You are a troll. School will soon be on once more and you'll be fruitfully occupied once more.

The Arabs who ruled Spain in the Middle Ages are not the same, culturally, as the Arabs who ruled the Middle East in the 20th century.

What does Christianity have to do with this topic?

Well, if you bothered to read the post I was replying to and thought about it rather than type the first fucking thing that wandered into your head you might realise that I was providing (a) context for muslim violence against Jews (b) some more detailed background of the history of Judaism under Islam.

There was no country or nation called "Arabs" that owned this land. The land originally belonged to the Ottoman Empire, which was gone. Thus, it didn't legally belong to any Arab group any more than it belonged to the Brits.



The Arabs could have continued to live there. The original plan that was proposed was for a Jewish State to be formed with Arabs to remain exactly where they were. However, the Arabs were obsessed with fears of displacement and a hatred of the Jews. However, during these first aliyahs Arabs were not forced off of their land or displaced. From the same source I quoted in the last post, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict", Michael Bard PhD cites:

"Althought for the next half-century [1900-1950] the Arabs would claim that the Jews were forcing them out of theirr land because, they argued, there was not enough room for both peoples, the truth was quite the contrary." (65)



I'm not sure how far back you'd like me to go, but Arab violence against Jews existed all throughout the Middle Ages. Bard notes:

"When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, anti-Semitism would surface, often with devastating results: On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was Crucified by an Arab mob htat proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of teh city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riotw as incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as an inordinate Jewish political power.

Other massacres of Jews in Arab lands occured throught the Middle East and particularly in North Africa. Decrees of ordering the destruction of synaggogues were enacted in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Despite the Koran's prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen, Morocco, and Baghdad." (56)

So perhaps if Arabs weren't killing off Jews and forecfully converting them to Islam for the better part of a thousand years, there would have been a larger Jewish population in the Middle East come the 20th century.



Well, there was something wrong with your analogy. I was trying to be nice, but it commits the fallacy of weak/questionable analogy. For one thing to be inferred about another, the two things must be similiar enough to reasonably make such an inference. The southern states in the USA are not similiar enough to infer anything about the British Mandate of Palestine.



No, they weren't, as Bard stated above. He also stated, "For many centuries, Palestine was a sparesly populated, poorly cultivated, and widely neglected expanse of eroded hills, sandy deserts, and malarial marshes." (65) Jews didn't cut away any sector of the Arab world. They went and settled on unused land, without displacing any Arabs, and turned it into the best land in the entire Middle East.



This was in reference to the UN vote for Israel's statehood. And the vote proved otherwise.



What Jewish attacks on the British? This was before the Israeli defense groups, like the Hagganah. You've yet to demonstrate that any such attacks have occured.



The nations that existed before what? There never was a nation called "the Arabs." It was a term given to persons who originated from Arabia and later extended to other ethnic groups within the Middle East. The fact is, its always been such a broad term that it can't refer to only one ethnic group or nationality alone. Wikipedia notes one definition as being:

Someone who considers him or herself to be an Arab (regardless of racial or ethnic origin) and is recognized as such by others.

And cites a hadith as stating, "Being an Arab is not because of your father or mother, but being an Arab is on account of your tongue. Whoever speaks Arabic is an Arab."

So I would bet all of those devout Islamic Arabic speaking Persians and Turks would disagree with you that they aren't Arabs. Same with all of those Iraqis who, for whatever reason, speak Farsi rather than Arabic like their Iranian neighbors.



The term "holocaust" technically only refers to Jews systematically exterminated under Hitler. It does not include those killed in WW2 outside of this. So really, it would be incorrect to say that anyone except Jews were killed in the holocaust. The rest killed as a result of Hitler were victims, but not of the holocaust.



Thats not true either. The British Mandate granted land for a Jewish State that includes the entire west bank, golan heights, and gaza strip area. The whole area of the "Palestinian territories" that exists right now was land granted to from the Jewish State in the British Mandate. It was everything east of the Jordan river.



I see, so you reject the law, and the fact that the Jews legally own the land, for your subjective feeling that its an "oppresive force."



Anti-Semitism is a term used only in reference to Jews, as I stated in a previous post. Look the word up in the dictionary. Yes, you can be an anti-Semite and be an Arab.

sry for the double post, but u will understand.

Before the ottoman empire, it was the arabs land, the british were a caretaker government, similar to hong kong. after their mandate was up, they were to return it to the arabs, and they could not simply decide how to carve the cake as if it was their own land (which it was not, again read the definition of a "mandate")

yes the arabs could have continued to live there, but not under their own rule. under your logic, they might as well have had a single arabic country, and the jews could have lived there.

lol rofl, explain how the jews and muslims were allies during the crusades if the muslims were violent against the jews during the middle ages. muslims have always been friends with jews, and still are (i know i am,) but they started hating the jews during the zionist era.

for bard to say that the jews made a barren desert land into the best land in the middle east is nakedly exposing his bias, and so i no longer recognise him as a source. i will argue that in fact dubai is the best land in the middle east, or even baghdad, for it is simply an opinion, and opinions are not evidence, and a "the complete idiots guide" book to include opinions, when it is meant to be a book of factual reference, makes it worthless.


The world has no say in the land of arabic countries, or else the UN could just create and destroy countries around the world as it wishes, which is why arabs do not recognise the UN vote as legitamite.

The Hadith is not a source, you need to provide the source of the person who actually wrote it. The hadith is a book of opinions, and they have been checked by scholars for their reliability depending on who wrote them. Obviously those of the prophet muhammad are most reliable, but some are completely ignored, unless ur a saudi, but nobody likes saudis.

Iranians and turks know very well they are not arabs, in fact im sure if you call one an arab they would be insulted by ur ignorance. Unless u follow the full hadith in a country that practices sharia, u would take the proper meaning of arab, which is someone of arabic blood. many malaysians and indonesians learn arabic in order to read the koran, however they are not arabs, nor are white people who learn arabic, they are still not arabs.

No, the holocaust is everyone killed systematically by nazi germany during world war 2, i guess the term has evolved into only meaning jews because it seems like it is only the jews which complain about it.

lol, "jewish defence forces." ever heard of jewish terrorists? because they exist, like those who assassinated Yitshak Rabin, or those that attacked british soldiers during the mandate period due to them limiting immigration to palestine.

The nation was not called "The arabs" it was called "the arabian empire" or "the muslim empire," and this nation was a single country that expanded throughout the middle east and north africa, even after occupations, socially and principally, that area was still arabic, just as hong kong was still asian during the period of british rule.

Regarding "rejecting the law" i was meant to put in your quotes and answer them, however forgot to do that. I was referring to your point about how apartheid is in law.

I am anti-zionist and proud, however i am not anti-semetic, stop pulling the anti-semetic card, because you guys throw it around so gleefully that i am going to be forced to actually care when u use it in a minute.

now, lets look at a very important map. The map that shows what israel was meant to be, not everything east of the jordan river, but in fact only half of that. it is even more than what the israelis are finding hard to give now (that is, gaza and most of the west bank.) the map below shows that jerusalem is an international city, and palestinians are given twice the amount of land being offered to them now. The map? Here it is:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/97/UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1947.png

This was the Israel that the UN voted for, the "civilized world" voted for, the one that you seem to support, this is a different Israel, todays Israel:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Is-map.PNG

and note that Israel still occupies the west bank, so the real Israel is even larger than the one shown in the map.

o and lololololrofln00b, kurds are MUSLIM, lolololol they are getting persecuted 4 their religion.
They were in Iran, after the Shi'ite revolution. Obviously Kurds are not Shi'ites, and so for a while they had it pretty tough. I believe that's gotten a lot better for the Kurds of Iran.
And why do you keep calling people n00bs? Have you looked at your postcount?

In iraq, the gassing has to be put in the context that they were giving iran intelligence during the iraq-iran war, because other wise kurds had it so sweet in iraq. they were given compensation payments, they were taught both kurdish and arabic in their schools, and were allowed to freely practice their culture, compared to the rest of the middle east, saddam was a hero for the kurds, but all they did is complain and create problems, like in every other country in the world
That'll be it, I'm sure.
At any rate, the Kurds are not having it sweet, otherwise they wouldn't be fighting (and bombing Turkish cities (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4914786.stm)) for their own state.

Spotted First!
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Spotted First!
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
:confused:

They bought the land legally and had the right to defend themselves.

Oh and BTW. They have a right to a state because of the Balfour Declaration, which was later affirmed by the Peel Commission and the UN which you hold so dear.

Your basis to the Jewish people having a legal right to a state in Israel depends upon an imperialist politician in 1917 currying favour with the Rothschilds?

Tell me - did Balfour ask the "Transjordanians" or "Palestinians" their opinion on the matter?

No, the holocaust is everyone killed systematically by nazi germany during world war 2, i guess the term has evolved into only meaning jews because it seems like it is only the jews which complain about it..

No, the vast majority who died were Jewish, thats why its taken as referring specifically to Jews. And were it some of mine, I'd "complain" about it too.

No, the vast majority who died were Jewish, thats why its taken as referring specifically to Jews.

That's just not true. The Holocaust refers to the entire Nazi program of extermination, not merely against the Jews. A plurality of the victims were Jews, maybe a majority depending on the figures you use, but certainly not a "vast majority."

Seems to me the point of this thread is "If you're not a hardcore Kahanist, you're an Anti-Semite."

Seems to me the point of this thread is "If you're not a hardcore Kahanist, you're an Anti-Semite."

You have met IDF before, haven't you?

Seems to me the point of this thread is "If you're not a hardcore Kahanist, you're an Anti-Semite."

Sure, the "if you're not with us, you're against us" speech. Why can't we just get along? As someone said a few post back, compromise is the way to go. PERSUADE them to compromise. How? Well, why not give NATO a bloody meaning again? Make Jerusalem a city mantained by the international community, and send troops to help keep the peace in the area, protecting both Isrealis and Palestinians, increase political pressure over Israel and the Palestinian authority, and actively search and destroy individuals and organizations that bred fundamentalism and anger among both peoples.

My two cents.

The fact of the matter is that Israel was built on land that was taken without consent and by force. Most of America's policies in the Middle East are for Israel's benefit. This is why the US is hated there.

If anyone attacked Israel though, Israel wouldnt need the US. Israel can probably take out the entire Middle East on its own. After all, the US gave them a SHITLOAD of nukes that I am sure they arent afraid to use. They are already starving the Palestinians, why not nuke em?

Sure, the "if you're not with us, you're against us" speech. Why can't we just get along? As someone said a few post back, compromise is the way to go. PERSUADE them to compromise. How? Well, why not give NATO a bloody meaning again? Make Jerusalem a city mantained by the international community, and send troops to help keep the peace in the area, protecting both Isrealis and Palestinians, increase political pressure over Israel and the Palestinian authority, and actively search and destroy individuals and organizations that bred fundamentalism and anger among both peoples.

My two cents.

Absolutely. Won't happen due to the US veto, but there ye go.

Absolutely. Won't happen due to the US veto, but there ye go.

Are you confusing NATO with the UNSC? Does the US have a veto over NATO decisions? What other countries have vetoes in NATO decisions?

That's just not true. The Holocaust refers to the entire Nazi program of extermination, not merely against the Jews. A plurality of the victims were Jews, maybe a majority depending on the figures you use, but certainly not a "vast majority."

Thats just wrong.

The Jews were a HUGE VAST INSANE majority of those killed at the death camps.

Where the hell do you get your statistics?

Aryan Nations?

Thats just wrong.

The Jews were a HUGE VAST INSANE majority of those killed at the death camps.

Where the hell do you get your statistics?

Aryan Nations?
Well, the most credible sources state them at about 11 million total and 6 million of them being Jews. I woudn't consider that a vast majority.

Are you confusing NATO with the UNSC? Does the US have a veto over NATO decisions? What other countries have vetoes in NATO decisions?

emmm...NATO would lack the numbers to show its a descion of the world. Besides the big monkey in that cage is also the US. It would really have to be done through the UN to have legitamacy.

Well, the most credible sources state them at about 11 million total and 6 million of them being Jews. I woudn't consider that a vast majority.

Ok, this is from wiki.

Tell me how this is not a vast majority.

5.1–6.0 million Jews, including 3.0–3.5 million Polish Jews[21]
1.8 –1.9 million non-Jewish Poles (includes all those killed in executions or those that died in prisons, labor, and concentration camps, as well as civilians killed in the 1939 invasion and the 1944 Warsaw Uprising)[22]
200,000–800,000 Roma & Sinti
200,000–300,000 people with disabilities
80,000–200,000 Freemasons [23]
100,000 communists
10,000–25,000 homosexual men
2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses

Wiki tells it all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Jews)

Ok, this is from wiki.

Tell me how this is not a vast majority.

5.1–6.0 million Jews, including 3.0–3.5 million Polish Jews[21]
1.8 –1.9 million non-Jewish Poles (includes all those killed in executions or those that died in prisons, labor, and concentration camps, as well as civilians killed in the 1939 invasion and the 1944 Warsaw Uprising)[22]
200,000–800,000 Roma & Sinti
200,000–300,000 people with disabilities
80,000–200,000 Freemasons [23]
100,000 communists
10,000–25,000 homosexual men
2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses

Wiki tells it all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Jews)


Of course, speaking purely numerically, this works out as just a sideshow compared to Soviet deaths in WWII.

emmm...NATO would lack the numbers to show its a descion of the world. Besides the big monkey in that cage is also the US. It would really have to be done through the UN to have legitamacy.


The thing is "a decision of the world" ain't gonna happen. Because the world does not take one stand, united. As easily seen in this thread, there are those who support the palestinians, others who support the isrealis, those who are in favour of a resolution fair for both peoples, and those who don't give a rat's ass. That said, a unilateral stand is not going to work either. I suggested NATO, because it's mainly composed of european nations, and frankly, "we" made that mess (or better, the british did, but this is a "union", and i know i'm oversimplifying things) so we might as well clean it up. You can't please everyone everywhere, but you can sure as hell try to please all those involved.

Thats just wrong.

The Jews were a HUGE VAST INSANE majority of those killed at the death camps.

Where the hell do you get your statistics?

Aryan Nations?

From the Wikipedia article you posted:

Taking all these other groups into account, however, the total death toll rises considerably, estimates generally place the total number of Holocaust victims at 9 to 11 million, though some estimates have been as high as 26 million.

Of which six million were Jews. Hardly a "huge insane vast majority."

The statistics that came to mind for me were 11 million to 13 million, statistics that certainly did not come from Aryan Nations.

Of course, speaking purely numerically, this works out as just a sideshow compared to Soviet deaths in WWII.

Well yeah, its a side show compared to the deaths suffered from numerous sides during the war effort.

But I was only talking about the holocaust...which was seperate from the war.

Of which six million were Jews. Hardly a "huge insane vast majority."


Yes, it still is.

Because while they make up 6 million, others make up like a million here a couple hundred thousand here.

So speaking in terms of per group.

Jews suffered the most losses...by a huge vast difference.

Ergo, they suffered the majority.

Yes, it still is.

Because while they make up 6 million, others make up like a million here a couple hundred thousand here.

So speaking in terms of per group.

Jews suffered the most losses...by a huge vast difference.

Ergo, they suffered the majority.

Do you know what a "plurality" is?

Do you know what a "plurality" is?

Yes.

Yes.

Good. Do you understand how it is different from a majority? You are confusing the two.

The Jews had a far larger quantity of victims than any other single group, and, except for the Roma, a larger proportion of their population died than that of any other single group.

But of the total number, they do not make up a "huge insane vast majority."

Good. Do you understand how it is different from a majority? You are confusing the two.

The Jews had a far larger quantity of victims than any other single group, and, except for the Roma, a larger proportion of their population died than that of any other single group.

But of the total number, they do not make up a "huge insane vast majority."

By adding up the numbers on Wiki, I got about 9 and a half million people dying.

If 6 million were Jews, then yes, I'd say that puts Jews at a huge insane vast majority.

By adding up the numbers on Wiki, I got about 9 and a half million people dying.

If 6 million were Jews, then yes, I'd say that puts Jews at a huge insane vast majority.

I don't know if two-thirds is a "huge insane vast majority," but I suppose such things are pretty subjective.

Now that the historical facts have been cleared up and the only points of contention are as to the precise meaning of subjective labels like "huge" and "vast," there is no point in continuing this argument.

Now that the historical facts have been cleared up and the only points of contention are as to the precise meaning of subjective labels like "huge" and "vast," there is no point in continuing this argument.

Good call. :p

But I was only talking about the holocaust...which was seperate from the war.

What alternate history do you inhabit where the holocaust was separate from the war? The two are inextricably linked.

What alternate history do you inhabit where the holocaust was separate from the war? The two are inextricably linked.

Well..there was the war...and there was the holocaust.

Had there not been a war, Hitler could have still slaughtered all the undesirables..atleast in Germany.

Well..there was the war...and there was the holocaust.

Had there not been a war, Hitler could have still slaughtered all the undesirables..atleast in Germany.

You're quite correct. Those slaughtered in the Holocaust are distinct from those killed as a result of the war itself. Looking up the word "Holocaust" in the dictionary tells us that much. Examples:


"Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: “Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe” (Emanuel Litvinoff)."

From this definition, we see that the term "Holocaust" is applicable to Jews only. Some may agree, some may disagree. It seems to exclude those who were also victims of the death camps, who were not Jews. Although the vast majority of those in death camps were Jews, its unfair to exclude a single soul who was a victim of the Shoah, Jew or Goy. Which brings us to our next definition:

3 a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II

This definition stipulates that it must refer to the mass slaughter of European civilians. Thus, lives lost in the battles against Nazi Germany, as regretful and horrible as they are, are not included as a part of the Holocaust proper. This definition does include the non-Jewish victims of death camps.

The fact is, the Shoah is quite distinct from the war itself. The Jews murdered during the Shoah were innocent civilians, not soldiers. In most cases they didn't and were unable to fight back. This is quite distinct from those who were killed fighting in the war.

Now, of the people that died in the Holocaust/Shoah, Jews were in fact the vast majority. Jews were not the vast majority of people who died as a result of the entire situation, including the war. We must learn to draw a distinction between the Holocaust and the war itself, as we see the Holocaust is defined as something clear and distinct.

You have met IDF before, haven't you?

Not really, but I doubt anybody naming their nation after the Israeli Defense Force is going to be more moderate than your average Kahanist when it comes to the issue of Israel.

The fact is, the Shoah is quite distinct from the war itself. The Jews murdered during the Shoah were innocent civilians, not soldiers. In most cases they didn't and were unable to fight back. This is quite distinct from those who were killed fighting in the war.

Most of the circa 11 million Soviet civilians who were killed also fit into those categories...

My view would be that the Kurds have just as much right and justification for their own state as the Jews.

Yes, that is my view too. If the majority Kurds indeed aspire for a seperate country, then they should have it, especially in light of the discrimination they face/faced in Iran, Iraq and Turkey.

That these three muslim countries would deny a fellow muslim group an independant homeland but would pontificate (Iran especially and Iraq under Saddam) endlessly about Joos stealing Arab land is hypocrisy and betrays the larger point that this is about the whole darul Islam and darul harb thing...

We must learn to draw a distinction between the Holocaust and the war itself, as we see the Holocaust is defined as something clear and distinct.

Seems to me like this would have tendency to occlude perspective and create an ahistorical view of the thing.


To say nothing of the fact that such an attempt to view the holocaust in some kind of isolation is to blind oneself to similar contemporaneous situations: frex, the internees on the Burma Railroad.

I never said I "side with the arabs" - I just said that I don't think that Israel has a moral or ethical right to being where they are. I'm not saying anyone else is better or worse, especially the arabs.

I don't side with either... The two groups are bound to turn each others territories into glass-parking lots one day.... I for one am a strict advocate of zero involvement in the middle-east.

Yes, that is my view too. If the majority Kurds indeed aspire for a seperate country, then they should have it, especially in light of the discrimination they face/faced in Iran, Iraq and Turkey.

That these three muslim countries would deny a fellow muslim group an independant homeland but would pontificate (Iran especially and Iraq under Saddam) endlessly about Joos stealing Arab land is hypocrisy and betrays the larger point that this is about the whole darul Islam and darul harb thing...

What about Kurdistan?

What about Kurdistan?

:confused:

There is no country called Kurdistan as of now. But I believe the majority Kurds want a country called Kurdistan and their aspirations should be accomodated.

:confused:
It is a little task that i am competeing in...