NationStates Jolt Archive

there is no-one to negotiate with. israel has never had any interest in giving the palestinians anything.

Bullshit!

Bullshit!
oh, the occupation and the settlement has been ended then?

(you say Might is right) Hitler would agree with you I am sure

He probably would have.

And he'd have been just as wrong as you are.

I never said might was right. I said that gullt cannot be inherited.

Were the initial creators of Israel wrong? That's actually questionable; Britain, as the governing state, had both the power and the right to partition and govern that land as it saw fit. But even if it was wrong, that has no relevance now - people born to that land exist, consider themselves citizens of the state of Israel, and consider that land to be their own.

That being the case, to remove them from that land is an equally or more reprehensible act than anything done to the Arabs who were living there before 1947. Aside from the simple truth that two wrongs do not make a right, it would not solve the problem. It would only prolong and worsen the conflict, as the current Israelis would then fight to recover their land.

In 1947, the argument that the land wasn't theirs might have had some validity. In 2007, it has none.

The families still exist and wait in refugee camps for their return while Israel continues its Colonization of Palestine. Injustice does not become justice with the passage of time. The Arabs' right to self determination was violated by the Jews, the British, and the UN. That's unacceptable. Israel must be dissolved.

And what of the right to self-determination of the Israeli Born?

As to "Injustice does not become justice with the passage of time" - I will agree, when you agree to dissolve every nation on Earth except Iceland.

And what of the right to self-determination of the Israeli Born?There is none if it would exist only at the expense of others.

There is none if it would exist only at the expense of others.

Yet, you would accept modern self determination for the Palestinians, though it be at the expense of others?

Yet, you would accept modern self determination for the Palestinians, though it be at the expense of others?It's the Palestinian Arabs' original home. Jews came from outside in the 19th/20th century for ideological reasons. Balfour is burning in all hells imaginable.

Yet, you would accept modern self determination for the Palestinians, though it be at the expense of others?I support self Determination for both Palestine and... a Israel (or more Israels)

I support self Determination for both Palestine and... a Jewish state (or more)

Then we are in agreement. Only by a functional, negotiated two-state solution, or by the complete genocide of one side, will this conflict ever end.

Needless to say, I support only the negotiated solution.

It's the Palestinian Arabs' original home. Jews came from outside in the 19th/20th century for ideological reasons. Balfour is burning in all hells imaginable.

Yes, it has been their home, for at least the past few millenia. It is also the home of the Israeli-born, and equally so.

I support self Determination for both Palestine and... a Israel (or more Israels)Mutually exclusive. Giving Jews half of Palestine and even more negates the Palestinian Arabs' right to self determination. The people who have been expelled are still there.

Yes, it has been their home, for at least the past few millenia. It is also the home of the Israeli-born, and equally so.So might makes right? And it is OK to take away from Arabs?

So might makes right? And it is OK to take away from Arabs?

The Israeli-born have done neither.

It would have been nice if the British had given the Palestinian Arabs a say in the creation of Israel; but they didn't, and under the terms of their mandate, they didn't have to.

Israel's expansion since has been solely at the expense of those who have attacked them. And I will defend any nation's seizing of lands used to attempt their destruction.

Today, there is a chance for peace. It will happen only if both sides acknowledge the other as a sovereign state with a right to exist. Israel is not going to cease to be - I suggest you accept that, stop being upset over what cannot be changed, and maybe start supporting efforts that will actually accomplish something.

Yes, it has been their home, for at least the past few millenia. It is also the home of the Israeli-born, and equally so.

Indeed.

So might makes right? And it is OK to take away from Arabs?

Is it ok to take away from jews?

The Israeli-born have done neither.They continue the land grab their parents started. They actively make their parents' sins their own.

Is it ok to take away from jews?Taking back from a burglar is always ok.

Hmmm, do they have laws and regulations that controls squatters there?

(That is, if we consider the Palestinians as squatters and how long have they squatted there).

They continue the land grab their parents started. They actively make their parents' sins their own.

Taking back from a burglar is always ok.

Some have. Others oppose such.

I seem to recall you are one of the ones ever quick to defend the actions of the Palestinians - car bombs, missile strikes, murders. The usual statement is that "only a few" do it, and the rest cannot be held responsible.

Yet you will not apply such a brush to the Israelis?

And you have not answered the fundamental question: If it is wrong to take from one who has a valid claim, is it not wrong to take such from another, also with a valid claim?

Some have. Others oppose such.

I seem to recall you are one of the ones ever quick to defend the actions of the Palestinians - car bombs, missile strikes, murders. The usual statement is that "only a few" do it, and the rest cannot be held responsible.

Yet you will not apply such a brush to the Israelis?

And you have not answered the fundamental question: If it is wrong to take from one who has a valid claim, is it not wrong to take such from another, also with a valid claim?Jews have no valid claim to Palestine beyond the 5% to 10% they have made up of the population in the fast 15 centuries.

Jews have no valid claim to Palestine beyond the 5% to 10% they have made up of the population in the fast 15 centuries.

Those born there all have an equal claim - whether Arab, Jew, or any other ethnicity.

Else, would you say no one but an Indian has a claim to US citizenship?

Those born there all have an equal claim - whether Arab, Jew, or any other ethnicity.They were born there out of their parents' crimes. They have no valid claim.
Btw all Palestinian Arabs were all born there. Jews weren't.
And how were Jews an ethnicity? They just were German, French, Dutch, Russian, whatever followers of a religion.

Else, would you say no one but an Indian has a claim to US citizenship?Indians have made peace with the US and vice versa.
But Israel is not interested in peace, it is only interested in land and Jewishness.

They were born there out of their parents' crimes. They have no valid claim.

Then you also deny the claims of every American, Briton, Frenchman, German, Spaniard...and Arab.

Btw all Palestinian Arabs were all born there. Jews weren't.
And how were Jews an ethnicity? They just were German, French, Dutch, Russian, whatever followers of a religion.

They weren't. But they are now.

Oddly enough, the same is true of Palestinians. Before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there was no such thing, they were simply Arabs - but now they are ethnic Palestinians.

Indians have made peace with the US and vice versa.
But Israel is not interested in peace, it is only interested in land and Jewishness.

Then - why do they continue to try to make peace?

Oddly enough, the same is true of Palestinians. Before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there was no such thing, they were simply Arabs - but now they are ethnic Palestinians.I am always talking about Arabs. Palestinians is just for convenience to mean those Arabs who lived in Palestine.

Then - why do they continue to try to make peace?They do not.

I am always talking about Arabs. Palestinians is just for convenience to mean those Arabs who lived in Palestine.

Yet - today, they see themselves as Palestinians. The world sees them as Palestinians. Even Israel sees them as Palestinians. They were not an ethnicity - and now, just as with the Israelis, they are.

They do not.

Reality does not agree with you.

I would say that my view of Hamas is that it is a terrorist organization, and I feel that they would not be content with their own country, and that they would call for the destruction of Israel like their ally Iran does. As far as civilians go though I feel baad for both Israelis and Palestinians that have to deal with this religious prejudice because some of them would be able to get along fine without the governments enforcing policies of isolation and segregation

Israel's expansion since has been solely at the expense of those who have attacked them.

Bollocks, plain and simple. Whens the last time you heard of Jordanians or Egyptians being evicted in the West Bank or the rest of the OT? Its the palestinians that are on the end of it, no-one else. I fully realise that UB is full of crap, but theres no excuse for sinking to his level.

Bollocks, plain and simple. Whens the last time you heard of Jordanians or Egyptians being evicted in the West Bank or the rest of the OT? Its the palestinians that are on the end of it, no-one else. I fully realise that UB is full of crap, but theres no excuse for sinking to his level.

Actually, I'm sticking by my statement. The area we now know as "The Palestinian Authority" only came into Israel's hands when Jordan and the other Arab states attacked Israel. Prior to that it was Jordanian territory (excepting the Golan Heights, which was Syrian).

Don't forget, before the wars Israel had virtually no control of Jerusalem, much less the West Bank or Gaza.

Actually, I'm sticking by my statement. The area we now know as "The Palestinian Authority" only came into Israel's hands when Jordan and the other Arab states attacked Israel. Prior to that it was Jordanian territory (excepting the Golan Heights, which was Syrian).

Don't forget, before the wars Israel had virtually no control of Jerusalem, much less the West Bank or Gaza.Before the wars Israel did not exist.

Wrong, my friend. In ancient times, they had their own nation, before Ancient Rome came in and ground it into powder.

Wrong, my friend. In ancient times, they had their own nation, before Ancient Rome came in and ground it into powder.
That's only what the bible claims. The archaeological record tells otherwise.
And this has no relevance in the 20th century anyways.

Actually, I'm sticking by my statement. The area we now know as "The Palestinian Authority" only came into Israel's hands when Jordan and the other Arab states attacked Israel. Prior to that it was Jordanian territory (excepting the Golan Heights, which was Syrian).

Don't forget, before the wars Israel had virtually no control of Jerusalem, much less the West Bank or Gaza.

Yet the people living there are the Palestinians. The ones occupied are the Palestinians. The ones who landed there after being evicted in 48 are the Palestinians. Its odd how you think of people when speaking of Israelis born post 1948 but forget the concept entirely when speaking of the OT.

Jews have no valid claim to Palestine beyond the 5% to 10% they have made up of the population in the fast 15 centuries.

Oh brother :rolleyes:

I am always talking about Arabs. Palestinians is just for convenience to mean those Arabs who lived in Palestine.

And a political pawn for all the arab nations that hates Israel. Syria even admits that the refugee problem is their own fault.

They do not.

Bullshit.

Before the wars Israel did not exist.

Bullshit. Israel declared themselve a country and only after they did were they attacked.

Wrong, my friend. In ancient times, they had their own nation, before Ancient Rome came in and ground it into powder.

Actually that's false. The Babylonian Empire and the Assyrians took out the Kingdom of Israel. The Persian/Mede Empire took out the Babylonian Empire, The Greeks took out the Persian, and the Roman Empire took out the Greeks.

You sir, have been rebutted.

Bullshit. Israel declared themselve a country and only after they did were they attacked.Which means it didn't exist. And a couple of days really don't count.

I am sure history disagrees with you, UB, as Rome did indeed control the area with Israel in it, and it makes sense for what happened to have happened. After all, what Rome did was standard procedure, and I don't see any other valid conclusion for the mass scattering that occurred with the Jews.

Which means it didn't exist. And a couple of days really don't count.

You're an idiot if you think that the state did not exist before the First Arab-Israeli War in 1948. The state declared themselves a nation in May 1948. That was when their state came into existence. It is the same with the United States. Though honestly, we became a nation on July 2, 1776 and not July 4, 1776.

You're an idiot if you think that the state did not exist before the First Arab-Israeli War in 1948. The state declared themselves a nation in May 1948. That was when their state came into existence. It is the same with the United States. Though honestly, we became a nation on July 2, 1776 and not July 4, 1776.
A state comes into existence because a bunch of fanatics says so? Ridiculous. It's just an act of colonialism.

I am sure history disagrees with you, UB, as Rome did indeed control the area with Israel in it, and it makes sense for what happened to have happened. After all, what Rome did was standard procedure, and I don't see any other valid conclusion for the mass scattering that occurred with the Jews.wtf?

Syria even admits that the refugee problem is their own fault.


Actually a Syrian made a remark in a memoir which has since been totally distorted to justify the occupation. It isn't Syria building settlements in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. They aren't sitting there with a gun against the Israelis heads making them do it either.

Bullshit. Israel declared themselve a country and only after they did were they attacked.

Actually, from the time the UN Partition Plan was passed, there was fighting between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab militias... months before the state's existence was declared.

The success of the Zionists in that fighting was one motive for the intervention of the neighboring Arab nations.

The Babylonian Empire and the Assyrians took out the Kingdom of Israel. The Persian/Mede Empire took out the Babylonian Empire, The Greeks took out the Persian, and the Roman Empire took out the Greeks. [Corneliu 2]

No, actually the Jews kicked out the Greeks and re-established their independence, and Rome tried for a while keeping them in a tributary but self-governing status before finally stomping them.
Actually, from the time the UN Partition Plan was passed, there was fighting between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab militias... months before the state's existence was declared.

There had been fighting off and on for decades.

Which means it didn't exist. And a couple of days really don't count.

A state comes into existence because a bunch of fanatics says so? Ridiculous. It's just an act of colonialism.

Bull. It was a recognized state by most of the world in the UN. It was a state on the May 14, 1948. You are terrible at this history thing.

There had been fighting off and on for decades.

Fighting, yes. But this was on a larger scale, and was in part responsible for the Palestinian refugee crisis.

The image sometimes presented of an innocent, peaceful Israel being beset by Arab armies suddenly attacking out of the blue is simply false and propagandistic.

As it happened, Arab intervention was hesitant, lackluster, and uncoordinated, mainly aiming at appeasing the Arab nationalist factions, who were sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians--with some justification.

It is an often-neglected fact that in this war of alleged pure self-defense, Israel ended up with much more territory than the UN gave it.

There had been fighting off and on for decades.

Fighting, yes. But this was on a larger scale, and was in part responsible for the Palestinian refugee crisis.
Previously, the killings had been all the other way, and responsible for Jewish refugees. The Palestinians started the violence, and I have little sympathy for their whining about how it turned out badly for them. The side that starts a war often loses territory as a result, this is not news. There were about 700,000 Palestinian refugees in 1948-- and about 500,000 Jewish refugees fleeing the other way; and at the same time there were a couple million Germans expelled from Pomerania/Silesia/Prussia, and over 10 million Chinese refugees on the wrong side of that war. We do not still here about all those others, because unlike the Arabs all those other groups take care of their own. The Nationalist Chinese are the only example of any of those groups actually maintaining the fantasy that they were going to be able to reverse the outcome of the war and take their homes back-- but they gave up on that a long time ago.

Previously, the killings had been all the other way,

Nonsense. Like always, they went both ways.

and responsible for Jewish refugees.

In Palestine? Not particularly.

The Palestinians started the violence

In conflicts like this one, who started it is not only irrelevant but also impossible to determine.

There were about 700,000 Palestinian refugees in 1948-- and about 500,000 Jewish refugees fleeing the other way; and at the same time there were a couple million Germans expelled from Pomerania/Silesia/Prussia, and over 10 million Chinese refugees on the wrong side of that war.

"They do it too!" has never been much of an excuse.

I don't support Israel. It's as plain and simple as that. Nor do I think anyone else should, for obvious reasons. Ethnic cleansing, segregation walls, murder of peaceful protesters, including women and children... I don't get why anyone supports that damned country at all.

A state comes into existence because a bunch of fanatics says so? Ridiculous. It's just an act of colonialism.

WTF? It is colonialization to declare independence?

I don't support Israel. It's as plain and simple as that. Nor do I think anyone else should, for obvious reasons. Ethnic cleansing, segregation walls, murder of peaceful protesters, including women and children... I don't get why anyone supports that damned country at all.

Because the state has a right to exist. Much like a Palestinian State has a right to exist but the problem is that terror asshats keep ruining it when they bomb civilians with suicide bombers which prompts Israel to crack down on the Palestinian Government.

Because the state has a right to exist. Much like a Palestinian State has a right to exist but the problem is that terror asshats keep ruining it when they bomb civilians with suicide bombers which prompts Israel to crack down on the Palestinian Government.
Palestine has a right to exist, you say, yet still you condone Israel's illegal annexation of their land, the displacement of Palestinian citizens, the destruction of their homes and orchards, etc. Israel is stealing Palestinian lands. The suicide attacks are acts of desperation against their tyrant foes.

Isreal does deserve to exist, I agree with that much. But they don't deserve to do what they do to innocent people. Israel is one of, if not THE MOST, racist countries in the world right now.

Palestine has a right to exist, you say, yet still you condone Israel's illegal annexation of their land, the displacement of Palestinian citizens, the destruction of their homes and orchards, etc. Israel is stealing Palestinian lands. The suicide attacks are acts of desperation against their tyrant foes.

Ok! Point to the post where I support the following:

1) illegal annexation of their land
2) displacement of palestinian citizens
3) destruction of their homes and orchards

To answer the part about desperation thus the suicide attacks, since when is attacking civilians grounds to have your very own state? All it does is show that you have zero regard for human life. Why do you think all hell broke loose when Hamas won the Palestinian elections? Hamas now is forced to deal with Israel as a state but yet in their charter, it calls for the DESTRUCTION of the STATE OF ISRAEL! Explain that one to me.

Isreal does deserve to exist, I agree with that much. But they don't deserve to do what they do to innocent people. Israel is one of, if not THE MOST racist countries in the world right now.

Most racist? Hardly. I know of a few Middle Eastern States that are more racist than they are. In fact, I bet you do not know that there are arabs, yes arabs, in the Knesset, the actual government itself, and on the Israeli Supreme Court. Name me a Middle Eastern Country with a Jew in any one of those branches of government.

They have all my munnay.

I support Israel because there is no realistic alternative, and because the Jewish people have a claim to Jerusalem many centuries older than Muslims. Ideologically because Israel is surrounded by Islamists and they want to tighten the noose. I respect Israel because its willing to take a stand against terrorism. Also, because Israel is the underpuppy that fights like a German Shepherd.

Why do the Jewish have more of a claim to the land? The only source that proves your point would be the bible. But of course according to that, they also left and let the Palestinians have it

Why do the Jewish have more of a claim to the land? The only source that proves your point would be the bible. But of course according to that, they also left and let the Palestinians have it

Actually...they were FORCED, forced I say, from the land. They did not leave willingly. As to letting the Palestinians have it, the Arabs took over the land from the Byzentine Empire.

The Israeli-born have done neither.The Israeli borns should be allowed to stay in Palestine, if they wish.

Mutually exclusive. Not really.
I am for the creation of an Israel (or more) elsewhere.

Is it ok to take away from jews?of course not..

Jews have no valid claim to Palestine beyond the 5% to 10% they have made up of the population in the fast 15 centuries.yep.

Wrong, my friend. In ancient times, the Jews had their own nation, before Ancient Rome came in and ground it into powder.wait what
???




Are you advocating that we redrawn the Borders to what it was in Ancient Rome?
are you fucking kidding me?

wait what
???




Are you advocating that we redrawn the Borders to what it was in Ancient Rome?
are you fucking kidding me?

Zionists are t3h phunny :)

Yet the people living there are the Palestinians. The ones occupied are the Palestinians. The ones who landed there after being evicted in 48 are the Palestinians. Its odd how you think of people when speaking of Israelis born post 1948 but forget the concept entirely when speaking of the OT.

Er, I'm honestly not sure what your problem here is, Nodinia. I support a Palestinian state as much as I support a Jewish one, and for the same reason: those born in a place have a claim on that place. With mutually competing, equally valid claims, negotiation is required to come to a mutually acceptable compromise.

As to the Old Testament (I presume you mean that by "OT"), as an Athiest I don't place any value on it at all.

Actually...they were FORCED, forced I say, from the land. They did not leave willingly. As to letting the Palestinians have it, the Arabs took over the land from the Byzentine Empire.
Do you honestly think that kind of irredentist logic works in the modern world? If so you're quite deluded and I would advice everyone to ignore you.

Name me a Middle Eastern Country with a Jew in any one of those branches of government.

Iran. However its how Israel treats the Palestinians in the OT thats the main problem.

As to the Old Testament (I presume you mean that by "OT"), as an Athiest I don't place any value on it at all.

OT = Occupied Territories, primarily the West Bank and Arab EastJerusalem.

Oh, now I get you. Well, while the details must clearly be up to the parties involved (such as access to the Wailing Wall and the Dome of the Rock) I would say the West Bank and Gaza have clearly been all but ceded by the Israelis, and East Jerusalem should be on the table. A two-state solution is the only viable solution.

No two-state solution can be viable unless the Israeli government is willing to take on the veracious colonialist attitude of it's West Bank settlers, who continue to creep further and further into Palestinian land despite numerous attempts of the government to dislodge them. Even after being forcibly removed (some literally being carried away by soldiers crying 'this is Jewish land, this is God's land' etc etc) by the government, and afterwards most of those people did not relocate to Israel proper but to other new settlements in development in the West Bank, building the synagogue and raising the flag etc.

It needs to be understood that the settlers are volunteers, they have the choice to live a much more prosperous and safer life in Israel proper yet they refuse and instead live in a 'front-line' settlement, what we need to ask each other is why would they do such a thing?.... Think about it long enough and the answer is pretty care, the reasons are political and are rooted in the fanatical Zionism of the so-called 'Greater Israel' settler population. The moderate Israeli government cannot control them except (as was quite shown) through force, they are literally the sons and daughters of Lehi and Irgun.

Yep, settlers. The American tax dollar at work.....
When her brother Mohammed arrived at the house, it was surrounded by a large number of settlers, among them soldiers and policemen. In order to record the event, he activated the recording device on his cell phone, after realizing that he would not be able to photograph anything because of the blackout.
Now he plays the recordings for us: "Erase this village - erase this house," one can hear a woman screaming in Hebrew, in a hoarse voice. And then one hears the sound of blows. Mohammed says the intruders banged on the windows with their weapons, throwing stones at them, and that they also had sticks and iron poles in their hands. The soldiers and policemen stood by and watched. The woman continues to scream on the recording: "People of Funduq, pay attention: You will suffer, this village is erased. In blood and in fire, this village will be erased. Come out, come out of your homes."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=934752

I am a Manchester United fan, I tend to support the winning side. Seems like Israel are 'winning' at the moment, so I support Israel. I also see the Palestinians as insignificant, they are constantly causing global warming by all the flags they burn, and seem have AK47's surgically attached to their arms.

The Israeli borns should be allowed to stay in Palestine, if they wish.

And palestinians were given the option of returning to Israel with Israeli citizenship.

Do you honestly think that kind of irredentist logic works in the modern world? If so you're quite deluded and I would advice everyone to ignore you.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

And palestinians were given the option of returning to Israel with Israeli citizenship.Israel does not want that, because it would destroy the Jewish state.

Israel does not want that, because it would destroy the Jewish state.

Then why offer it?

The settlements issue will have to be addressed, and stopped, before any two-state solution is possible. It is one of the few areas where Israel is clearly and undoubtedly in the wrong.

no this is not any anti semite thing, i just want to know what is your reason for supporting israel.
i support the palestinan cause and the people, not any one group or milita,
though i believe that hamas is the one with the biggest chance of making palestine a country, so come one every one dishup your reasons for supporting israel and how to solve the palestinan problem, who knows maybe dubya will take notice :):)

Of course a pro-Palestine threat cannot be antisemite because Arabs are semites, too. ;)

Anyway, MY way of supporting the people of Israel is supporting the creation of the State of Palestine - and my way of supporting the people of Palestine is supporting the existance of Israel.

I don't give a fuck about the Palestinian and Israeli LEADERS. Most of them are just exploiting the state of quasi-war to stay in power, and don't care for their people.
Hamas is no different from the israelian Likud or the neo-centrist Kadima party. Just a bunch of warmongers.

Then why offer it?Diversion.

Finally got back on so I can respond now.

wiki says that your smason is some Biblical personage.. So I guess this is all about the idiotic End-Times stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option :rolleyes: It is that hard to find.
Besides the very Samson article has:
More recently, elite Israeli combat units have been named "Samson", and the Israeli nuclear program was called the "Samson Option".[25]
(look under the "Israeli culture" part)
Is he like a Jewish Biblical Writer?
I dont feel like wasting anymore time on Biblical research/speculation.
Just tell us why you think we all going to die if the Jews give back their land to the Palestinians.

Now either you are:

A.Some how really Ignorant of this despite all the Anti-Israel stuff you seem to know.
or
B. Lying through your teeth because you don't want to think about it while you dream of the deaths of Zionists.

I'm assuming B, because there is no way you could jump on the Israel hate bandwagon without knowing even a little about this.

But to make it simple for you....

The Samson option is Israel's M.A.D. Program. They have 75 to 200 nuclear weapons of various strengths, and missiles to have the range to hit Tehran, Rome, or even Moscow. They also now have 2 Missile capable subs.

There have been comments by Israeli leaders, generals, as well as some unknowns regarding what would happen upon their destruction.

To put it bluntly, if Israel was destroyed, they would take the world with them.

It is already assumed that they would launch on all of the Surrounding Arab nations, causing untold amount of destruction and dangerous world effects, but it was also theorized that they would hit other targets, like the ones who would stand by and let it happen. AKA Europe and the US.

During the cold war it was believed that one of their targets was to be Moscow... Which if Moscow was hit, the Soviets would, of course, launch on us. We would respond and thus, nuclear winter. Even today if Russia gets nuked by Israel they will no doubt blame us.

As said in a 2002 Los Angeles Times opinion piece by Louisiana State University professor David Perlmutter:
"What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away--unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans--have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?"

And palestinians were given the option of returning to Israel with Israeli citizenship.

emmmmm...When?

It is already assumed that they would launch on all of the Surrounding Arab nations, causing untold amount of destruction and dangerous world effects, but it was also theorized that they would hit other targets, like the ones who would stand by and let it happen. AKA Europe and the US.

During the cold war it was believed that one of their targets was to be Moscow... Which if Moscow was hit, the Soviets would, of course, launch on us. We would respond and thus, nuclear winter. Even today if Russia gets nuked by Israel they will no doubt blame us.


1.200 warheads aren't enough for nuclear winter.
2.200 warheads (all in the megaton range) is what an old Akula (NATO:Typhoon) russki sub carries.

I support Israel because it was crafted by the United Nations, it expanded only in defensive wars, and it is not seeking to play the role of a regional hegemon, rather as a somewhat isolationist, security seeker.

Diversion.

That's poor debating tactics.

I support Israel because it was crafted by the United Nations, it expanded only in defensive wars, and it is not seeking to play the role of a regional hegemon, rather as a somewhat isolationist, security seeker.

Like it matters a crap to those suffering under its occupation why it expanded.....Last I was aware, "isolationist security seeker" didnt fit a state building civillian colonies outside its national borders.

Heres a sample of what you support...'defensive expansion' my ass....
When her brother Mohammed arrived at the house, it was surrounded by a large number of settlers, among them soldiers and policemen. In order to record the event, he activated the recording device on his cell phone, after realizing that he would not be able to photograph anything because of the blackout.
Now he plays the recordings for us: "Erase this village - erase this house," one can hear a woman screaming in Hebrew, in a hoarse voice. And then one hears the sound of blows. Mohammed says the intruders banged on the windows with their weapons, throwing stones at them, and that they also had sticks and iron poles in their hands. The soldiers and policemen stood by and watched. The woman continues to scream on the recording: "People of Funduq, pay attention: You will suffer, this village is erased. In blood and in fire, this village will be erased. Come out, come out of your homes."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...?itemNo=934752

The Israeli borns should be allowed to stay in Palestine, if they wish.And Palestinians were given the option of returning to Israel with Israeli citizenship.I am using the word "allowed" (covering yesterday, today and many years to come)

You -on the other hand- are using the words "were allowed" :confused:
Does it mean they are no longer allowed to enjoy citizenship if they are not Jews? Does it mean it was a -one time- Black Friday special only?

Like it matters a crap to those suffering under its occupation why it expanded.....Last I was aware, "isolationist security seeker" didnt fit a state building civillian colonies outside its national borders.

Frontier fortifications, by another name.

Basic defensive plan, develop self-sustaining frontier fortifications capable of holding out against an enemy advance for an extended period of time, and provide harassment against their rearguard and supply train once their main body has passed by. The Israelis are still scared of their neighbors, after all.

Frontier fortifications, by another name.

Basic defensive plan, develop self-sustaining frontier fortifications capable of holding out against an enemy advance for an extended period of time, and provide harassment against their rearguard and supply train once their main body has passed by.

Hehehe...yeah. A load of civillian apartment blocks and semi-detached housing on the frontline are "self-sustaining frontier fortifications"....I suppose the local 7-11 is a 'vital self defence supply depot'.....And the poisoning of wells and tearing up of crops is just "defensive" training......

Is this the local civil defence force having a trial run against an armoured column?
People of Funduq, pay attention: You will suffer, this village is erased. In blood and in fire, this village will be erased. Come out, come out of your homes."

Hehehe...yeah. A load of civillian apartment blocks and semi-detached housing on the frontline are "self-sustaining frontier fortifications"....I suppose the local 7-11 is a 'vital self defence supply depot'.....And the poisoning of wells and tearing up of crops is just "defensive" training......

http://www.vtjp.org/images/harhomawithfencelg.jpg

Complete with walls, a raised citadel and ramparts.

http://www.vtjp.org/images/harhomawithfencelg.jpg

Complete with walls, a raised citadel and ramparts.

Spare me. Thats supposed to keep out a tank division? Its to keep out the badly armed lads trying to stop their land being seized from under them.

Does it not strike you as odd that "public enemy number one" is a bearded fanatic but the people that the US Government, and you, seem to support in their endavour to kick people out of their homes are equally as rabid?

Is this the local civil defence force having a trial run against an armoured column?

Once again, the primary purpose for settlements is for strategic defense.

Has it been carried out humanely? No.

But, it has been carried out by a country that has been attacked by its neighbors repeatedly for the last half century. The Germans held a bitter grudge against the French for Louis XIV's sacking of the Rheinland all the way through the Franco-Prussian War over a hundred years later, and that's without continued domestic violence, I bet we'd be lucky if the Israelis got over their local hostilities that easily and rapidly.

http://www.vtjp.org/images/harhomawithfencelg.jpg

Complete with walls, a raised citadel and ramparts.

Thats a settlement not a military base... as hard that it might be too believe.
for about 5 years ago that was probably a palestinian village.

BTW that reminds me of a Concentration camp.......

Spare me. Thats supposed to keep out a tank division? Its to keep out the badly armed lads trying to stop their land being seized from under them.

Does it not strike you as odd that "public enemy number one" is a bearded fanatic but the people that the US Government, and you, seem to support in their endavour to kick people out of their homes are equally as rabid?



EQUALLY as Rabid??????? equally???!?!??!? since when is 8 palestinian deaths equal too 1 Israeli death??

Heres a sample of what you support...'defensive expansion' my ass....


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...?itemNo=934752

Besides the fact that your link is a 404,

That sounds more like the garden variety sorts of vindictive regional bombast and polemics that you hear out of everyone in the middle east, it doesn't surprise me that they were saying that when they did it.

Once again, the primary purpose for settlements is for strategic defense..

Once again, bollocks. North and South Korea have a defensive border, with minefields, tank traps, wire, block houses the works. I realise that the local forces don't have the best reputation, but are we supposed to believe that a bunch of civillians in three bedroom houses are going to hold off a tank divison? Or do the 'Evil' Arabs get so panicked by the sight of a neat well ordered lawn they just turn and run?

Besides, you are aware of what happens if Israel was to be drawn into a war of attrition, aren't you?



But, it has been carried out by a country that has been attacked by its neighbors repeatedly for the last half century..

Actually it hasnt been attacked by its neighbours in 30 odd years. And if it was serious, wheres the vast defence in depth required to hold up an armoured force? Its colonisation, as seen all over the world in a time we unwisely thought was ended.

Thats a settlement not a military base... as hard that it might be too believe.
for about 5 years ago that was probably a palestinian village.

Then you clearly aren't acquainted with NATO doctrine for confronting advancing armor. Placing reservists and equipping them with small anti-armor weapons, shoulder mounted rockets and such in smaller towns and villages.

BTW that reminds me of a Concentration camp.......

What, all the Jews in walls, surrounded by people who want to kill them?

Besides the fact that your link is a 404,

Fixed below....
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=934752

Once again, bollocks. North and South Korea have a defensive border, with minefields, tank traps, wire, block houses the works. I realise that the local forces don't have the best reputation, but are we supposed to believe that a bunch of civillians in three bedroom houses are going to hold off a tank divison? Or do the 'Evil' Arabs get so panicked by the sight of a neat well ordered lawn they just turn and run?

Once again, your ignorance of defense is showing.

Anyways, the big, bad mean defensive wall is the border, these settlements are frontier outposts.


Besides, you are aware of what happens if Israel was to be drawn into a war of attrition, aren't you?

The Americans and Europeans intervene diplomatically




Actually it hasnt been attacked by its neighbours in 30 odd years. And if it was serious, wheres the vast defence in depth required to hold up an armoured force? Its colonisation, as seen all over the world in a time we unwisely thought was ended.

And my German example still stands.

It's been attacked by the proxies of its neighbors, repeatedly, though.

Furthermore, the status of this land as colonized is questionable. It's clear that countries have and do take land in defensive wars as both punishment to the aggressor and for increasing the defense (which is precisely what Israel has done here, they are not the one's who obliterated and annexed the Palestinian state in 1948, it was the Arab neighbors, who used that very territory to menace and attack Israel later on) and that is not considered colonization. Alsace-Lorraine, anyone?

Furthermore, the status of this land as colonized is questionable. It's clear that countries have and do take land in defensive wars as both punishment to the aggressor and for increasing the defense (which is precisely what Israel has done here, they are not the one's who obliterated and annexed the Palestinian state in 1948, it was the Arab neighbors, who used that very territory to menace and attack Israel later on) and that is not considered colonization. Alsace-Lorraine, anyone?

Its final borders in 1948 were larger than that awarded by the UN. It expelled the natives. I think thats enough expansion, thanks very much. I might add that the Germans are not rendered stateless.

In particular its enough racist expansion......
The State of Israel will not grant permanent or temporary residency to West Bank Palestinians whose homes were annexed to the Jerusalem municipal area by the separation fence, the Palestinian newspaper Al Quds reported on Sunday.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=935078

Its final borders in 1948 were larger than that awarded by the UN. It expelled the natives. I think thats enough expansion, thanks very much. I might add that the Germans are not rendered stateless.

All the Germans had done to them was occupation for many years. Remember Nodinia that the Israelis did not start the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. They were attacked first by the Arabs in violation of UN Resolutions.

Why not? They took it away from Arabs. Doing to them what they did to others is the Golden Rule, is it not?

No.

The Golden Rule is : do unto others what you wish they would do to you, or, in the negative form, don't do unto other what you don't wish they would do to you.

Its final borders in 1948 were larger than that awarded by the UN. It expelled the natives. I think thats enough expansion, thanks very much. I might add that the Germans are not rendered stateless.

No, they were divided up into four zones, occupied by foreign powers (at least one of whom viewed their zone as a great place to gain some pillage and rape), powers who, eventually permitted them to form states, albeit two separate and divided ones, much to the chagrin of the Germans.

More than that, with the destruction of the Palestinian State by the Arabs, what do you think would be the appropriate response for an embattled, tiny country? To let them come right up to your borders? You've got to be a lunatic of a leader if you'd let that happen.

In particular its enough racist expansion......

Racist, how? Nationalist and paranoid perhaps, but doubtful that it's particularly racist.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=935078 [/QUOTE]

Because their chosen government is the PA.

All the Germans (.....)

I'm fully aware of it. Your information on your statement re Israeli offer of return (with full Israeli citizenship) to Palestinians ? When? Or do you think I've forgotten somehow.....


More than that, with the destruction of the Palestinian State by the Arabs, what do you think would be the appropriate response for an embattled, tiny country? To let them come right up to your borders? You've got to be a lunatic of a leader if you'd let that happen.

Racist, how?


A two tier justice system in the OT, arbitrary arrests and assasinations, land seizures.....You are aware of what goes on there...?



Because their chosen government is the PA.

But the territories they are in have been annexed.....or did you bother to read the article...

Originally Posted by Tmutarakhan
Previously, the killings had been all the other way,
[response by Soheran]
Nonsense. Like always, they went both ways
No, the massacres in the 1920's were entirely Arabs killing Jews.
and responsible for Jewish refugees.

In Palestine? Not particularly
Yes. The Jewish inhabitants of Hebron (had been there since 1492, when they moved from Spain by invitation of the Sultan) and the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem (there since Byzantine times) became refugees within Palestince.
The Palestinians started the violence

In conflicts like this one, who started it is not only irrelevant but also impossible to determine.

You are factually mistaken.
(by Eureka Australis) No two-state solution can be viable unless the Israeli government is willing to take on the veracious colonialist attitude of it's West Bank settlers, who continue to creep further and further into Palestinian land despite numerous attempts of the government to dislodge them.
This I certainly agree with.
I might add that the Germans are not rendered stateless.
Neither were the Palestinians in 1948. Britain had already carved off an Arab state in Palestine in the 1920's, declaring the Transjordan a Jew-free zone for those Arabs who could not abide living with Jews; king Abdullah did not see the need for a new separate state on the west bank of the Jordan and annexed the territories he was occupying. Egypt disagreed, and erected a new "Government of All Palestine" in the Gaza Strip; but then suppressed this state in 1951 after its leader ("Grand Mufti" Amin al-Husseini) repeatedly violated the cease-fire lines (threatening to cause a renewal of the war, for which Egypt was not prepared), and assassinated king Abdullah of Jordan for trying to negotiate a final settlement (and of course, for not letting the Mufti run the West Bank too).

Simplicity:

Israeli war of Independence: 500,000 Arabs (later called "Palestinians") desert Israel in its time of need. They apply for admission to other Arab states and get turned-down. They come back to Israel to find that the land they abandoned has been irrigated and settled. They want it back, along with their own nation carved-out of Israel (because now their population totals five-million.) They do not get it. They use bombs, Israel reacts.

Simplicity:You want Simplicity? I can do that: Palestinians are evicted from their land to create a "Jewish" state.

Simplicity:

Israeli war of Independence: 500,000 Arabs (later called "Palestinians") desert Israel in its time of need. .

Expelled by force and threat of force.


They come back to Israel to find that the land they abandoned has been irrigated and settled. .

They aren't allowed back. Many of their villages have been levelled. The land they farmed and irrigated has now been seized. Theres a UN survey compiled in 1946 that shows exactly ho much land was under tillage and the overwhelming majority was Arab. Should ye know better, I suggest you start talking crops and percentages......

No, the massacres in the 1920's were entirely Arabs killing Jews.


Strange that the death toll was 5 Jews and four Arabs in the 1920 riot then.....

Now I'm not saying that Americans live in complete harmony with each other, but the United States (along with other nations, surely) has developed somewhat of a slippery coexistence between Jews, Christians, Muslims and all the other religions and groups throughout mankind.

My question: Why in the world can't other places establish the same? God knows it's nowhere near a perfect coexistence in the U.S. but at some level there is a certain tolerance here. Again, not a perfect cohabitation, but tolerance. Israel, Iraq - the Middle East, in general...Why is it so difficult to establish order and non-war (I say [I]non-war[I] as opposed to peace on purpose) there?

Just posing more questions, I suppose. I don't claim to have the answers, just observations from my own small patch of grass, is all.

Expelled by force and threat of force.

Source?

They aren't allowed back.

Why should they be? They would not defend the nation in times of trouble. They expect Israel to "reserve" land for them?

Many of their villages have been levelled.

The unoccupied ones.

The land they farmed and irrigated has now been seized.
They abandoned it. It actually looks much better now.

Theres a UN survey compiled in 1946 that shows exactly ho much land was under tillage and the overwhelming majority was Arab. Should ye know better, I suggest you start talking crops and percentages......
Forget race. A good deal of the population abandoned the country when it was under attack. Those that remanded defended it. Now the chickens are back (and ten-times their number) and want in because Israel's enemies would not harbor them.

You want Simplicity? I can do that: Palestinians are evicted from their land to create a "Jewish" state.

Bull. They left when war started, and applied to Israel's enemies for citizenship. They were turned-down, and now they want to come back into Israel.

Source?
.

For starters? Benny Morris - "Birth of the Palestinian refugee" problem. Yitzak Rabins diaries also contain references to expusions, most notably the 50,000 from Haifa which he was personally involved in.


Why should they be? They would not defend the nation in times of trouble.
.

They were expelled, therefore thats hardly applicable.

The unoccupied ones..

Unoccupied due to its inhabitants being forced out.


They abandoned it. It actually looks much better now...

As above, they were expelled. Do you have something against Arabs, or are you generally for ethnic cleansing, regardless of who does it to who?


A good deal of the population abandoned.....

....no, were expelled.

Are you withdrawing your implication that the land was unworked? Or have you some numbers to hand you want to share?

*snip

My textbook:
(World History, second edition
revised
By Irvin L. Gordon.)

"The Palestinian Arab refugee problem arose out of the 1948-1949 war when the Arab nations tried to destroy the newborn state of Israel. Mainly fearing for their safety, some 540,000 Arabs, out of the 700,000 living in Israeli territory, fled to neighboring Arab nations. After the war the the Arab nations demanded that Israel readmit the Arab refugees [Israel refuses]....
"...The Arab nations also refused to assimilate the refugees into their societies [blah, blah, refugees suffer]."

These people now total 5 million.

My textbook:
(World History, second edition
revised
By Irvin L. Gordon.)

"The Palestinian Arab refugee problem arose out of the 1948-1949 war when the Arab nations tried to destroy the newborn state of Israel. Mainly fearing for their safety, some 540,000 Arabs, out of the 700,000 living in Israeli territory, fled to neighboring Arab nations.

Fleeing from fear of what seems to be where he takes the easy way out....

Rabin - on the expulsions of 50,000 from Lyddah and Ramla....
"Great Suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. [They] included youth-movement graduates who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to. There were some fellows who refused to take part. . . Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action . . . to explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel action." Yitzhak Rabin to David Shipler New York Times 22nd October, 1979:


From the history of the Hagganah, Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the orders for dealing with Arab villages...
"[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.' "

I suggest further reading on your part.....

Fleeing from fear of what seems to be where he takes the easy way out....

Rabin - on the expulsions of 50,000 from Lyddah and Ramla....


From the history of the Hagganah, Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah, the orders for dealing with Arab villages...


I suggest further reading on your part.....

What you say has validity. So I checked Wiki: according to it many Arabs left the Israel territory because they were afraid of the Jews. What happened is they got only half the land there (1947), and they reproduce much faster. Terrorist Palestinians caused trouble in Israel, and a 100,000 Palestinians feared a Jewish reprisal and left the nation.

The rest (440,000) left because of the war of '48. After the war, they all wanted back-in, and it is indeed a problem.

There were many different situations: in Lod (now Ben-Gurion Airport!) and neighboring Ramleh, the populations were herded onto buses at gunpoint, driven to the front lines and told to walk; in Haifa, the Jews begged the Arab populace to remain (many did and are still there) but the Arabic radio stations urged them to clear the area until the victorious armies pushed all the Jews into the sea; in southern Galilee, most of the refugees never actually saw a soldier, but cleared out as a matter of prudence before the fighting really got started. The cease-fire resolution called for those refugees who were "willing to live at peace with their neighbors" to be allowed to return home; Israel was not very trusting and wanted returning refugees to swear rather stringent oaths, and insisted that this should also apply to Jewish refugees expelled from the Arab countries; these difficulties were perhaps not insuperable, but negotiations were terminated when king Abdullah, the only Arab leader willing to speak to the other side, was murdered in front of his son and grandson (the son, who had already been a little unstable, went insane after his father's brains were splattered over him, and had to be put in an asylum; the grandson became the well-regarded king Hussein, but it was years before he was old enough to take effective control); Egypt then suppressed the "independent" Palestinian state in Gaza, but refused to "annex" Gaza as this would mean granting Egyptian citizenship, creating the legal limbo which has continued to this day.

What you say has validity. So I checked Wiki: according to it many Arabs left the Israel territory because they were afraid of the Jews. What happened is they got only half the land there (1947), and they reproduce much faster. Terrorist Palestinians caused trouble in Israel, and a 100,000 Palestinians feared a Jewish reprisal and left the nation.

The rest (440,000) left because of the war of '48. After the war, they all wanted back-in, and it is indeed a problem.


emmmm....right. Firstly, the most active "terrorists" were zionist. The Haganah, Irgun and Lehi/'Stern gang'. Secondly they fled from fear of attack, from attack, from massacre, were expelled directly either by force or threat. Even in Haifa, where its often mentioned Golda Meir was sent to stop them fleeing, there were simultaneously Haganah trucks with loudspeakers telling the Arabs to leave.

I suggest you read the "Expulsion of the Palestinians" by Nur Masalha

There were many different situations: in Lod (now Ben-Gurion Airport!) and neighboring Ramleh, the populations were herded onto buses at gunpoint, driven to the front lines and told to walk; .

True enough.


in Haifa, the Jews begged the Arab populace to remain (many did and are still there) .

The local Jews begged the Arab populace to remain. When told of the local mayors efforts Ben Gurion said "Doesnt he have anything better to do?". After the expulsions there was 3,500 or so out of a population of around 60,000 left.

There weren't any "expulsions" in Haifa. Most of them left, but none of them were forced to; that was my point.

There weren't any "expulsions" in Haifa. Most of them left, but none of them were forced to; that was my point.

Well with the news of forced expulsions and massacres elsewhere, the armed men and the trucks blaring out the "Go!" message, it would be safe to say they were encouraged in their leaving, would it not?

emmmm....right. Firstly, the most active "terrorists" were zionist.The Haganah, Irgun and Lehi/'Stern gang'.
The Arab terrorists were at least equal to the Zionist ones, if not more.

Secondly they fled from fear of attack, from attack, from massacre, were expelled directly either by force or threat. Even in Haifa, where its often mentioned Golda Meir was sent to stop them fleeing, there were simultaneously Haganah trucks with loudspeakers telling the Arabs to leave.
And there were also Arabs blowing-up Jews elsewhere. What we are seeing here, is that it was not the Israeli government giving the orders behind the expulsion. However, it was obvious a good-deal of them condoned it, or at least turned a blind eye; certainly inexcusable. But I did not exactly see the Arab government worrying about Palestinian terrorists, either. Not to say that the whole Palestinian people should suffer from such a government, I am just saying that the Palestinian government made no-more effort to protect Jews from Arabs, then the the Israeli government did to protect Arabs from Jews.

I suggest you read the "Expulsion of the Palestinians" by Nur Masalha

I shall try to get around to it, as I should be fair.

The Arab terrorists were at least equal to the Zionist ones, if not more..

You'll find that the Arab Palestinian populace was systematically disarmed following the revolt of 1936, many of its most "militant" being either killed in the fighting or hung by the British. Hence the rather dismal and numerically small Palestinian showing in resisting Israeli/zionist forces.


. What we are seeing here, is that it was not the Israeli government giving the orders behind the expulsion...

I think you might be in for a shock there.


However, it was obvious a good-deal of them condoned it, or at least turned a blind eye; certainly inexcusable. But I did not exactly see the Arab government worrying about Palestinian terrorists, either. ...

And what Arab Government would that be? The closest thing the Palestinians ever came to a cohesive body was the PLO in 1967, and that split soon after its foundation.



I am just saying that the Palestinian government made no-more effort to protect Jews from Arabs, then the the Israeli government did to protect Arabs from Jews....

Had there been one, they may not have, but thats the realm of speculation.


I shall try to get around to it, as I should be fair.

One can ask no more.

"You'll find that the Arab Palestinian populace was systematically disarmed following the revolt of 1936"
The alliance with Nazi Germany could not be tolerated, obviously.
"But I did not exactly see the Arab government worrying about Palestinian terrorists, either. ...
And what Arab Government would that be? "
The Mufti and his men.
The Palestinian leadership, supported by the vast majority of the populace, was unabashedly murderous from the very beginning of the Jewish immigration. I would compare them to those people who firebomb houses purchased by blacks, or Hispanics, or in Detroi often Arabs, in "white" neighborhoods. They had their grievances and causes for concern, there is no denying that, but: it was the Palestinians who insisted that the issues be settled by violence. OK, it HAS been settled: the Palestinians lost. As long as they continue to insist that violence is the only way to settle it, they will continue to lose. I cannot sympathize with them because the violence has turned out badly for them, they should have thought of that before. And the First Law of Holes states, that if you don't like the hole you are in, at the very least you should stop digging.

Why do you support Israel?

I don't.

The alliance with Nazi Germany could not be tolerated, obviously..

An alliance given implications it didn't have and importance it never acheived.


The Mufti and his men...

A rabble rouser and his mob do not a Government make.


The Palestinian leadership, supported by the vast majority of the populace, was unabashedly murderous from the very beginning of the Jewish immigration. ...

...but not - for example - in Haifa. Had they overall been so "murderous" from day one, its unlikely the movement would have got off the ground. I see you subscribe to the myth of the blood crazed Arab.


I would compare them to those people who firebomb houses purchased by blacks, or Hispanics, or in Detroi often Arabs, in "white" neighborhoods.
...

....despite the completely different nature of the situation...


They had their grievances and causes for concern, there is no denying that, but: it was the Palestinians who insisted that the issues be settled by violence.

A vast oversimplification. I might point out that when the Middle East was divided up by the French and British, there was no period of "public consultation" anymore than there had been under the Ottomans. Having no obvious place to seek redress and seeing that force had assumed primacy as a key to territorial claims, its inevitable that they did in the end act as they did. As did the settlers.


OK, it HAS been settled: the Palestinians lost. As long as they continue to insist that violence is the only way to settle it, they will continue to lose.


...and again, they are occupied, with no obvious source of redress. The body thats intended to settle such disputes in a non-violent fashion has been taken out of the equation by the US veto. Were they to have assumed non-violence, they'd be a mere footnote, a problem known about by few and cared about by less.


I cannot sympathize with them because the violence has turned out badly for them, they should have thought of that before.

Your empathy with the powerless defending themselves as best they might is noted.

"The alliance with Nazi Germany could not be tolerated, obviously..
An alliance given implications it didn't have and importance it never acheived."
Are you wishing that the alliance with the Nazis had successfully achieved the extermination of the Jews? The Palestinian alliance did not achieve that kind of importance because their violence was poorly directed at soft targets of opportunity, in the ugly manner of all their campaigns, and thus was easily suppressed.

"The Mufti and his men...
A rabble rouser and his mob do not a Government make."
That is the leadership they chose, just like they chose Arafat and his mob after that, and have now chosen Hamas, which will never be more than a mob either. There can be no question of a Palestinian state until they show some category for self-governance.

"I would compare them to those people who firebomb houses purchased by blacks, or Hispanics, or in Detroi often Arabs, in "white" neighborhoods.
...
....despite the completely different nature of the situation..."
I don't see it as "completely" different.
From the 1860's through the 1930's the Jews were entering as purchasers, not conquerors. Immigration was good for Palestine: previously it supported only half a million (including the Transjordan) because it had no industry and its agriculture was primitive. The newcomers greatly enhanced the carrying capacity of the land, attracting Arab immigrants also to the expanding economy (largely from Egypt and Yemen: Arafat's family was from Cairo, for example; the proportion of "Palestinians" whose ancestors did not live in Ottoman Palestine is controversial, of course, but if not an outright majority it is certainly a large percentage; in the 20's the British maintained a policy of limiting Jewish immigration by the number of Arab immigrants so that the Arabs would not feel in danger of becoming outnumbered). The objection to the Jewish immigrants at first was that they typically refused to accept the "dhimmitude" rules: non-Muslims had to bow whenever they encountered a Muslim; could not ride a horse, and if mounted on a camel or donkey and encountering a Muslim on foot had to dismount and never let their heads be higher; in a town with planked sidewalks, had to step off if a Muslim stepped on; and were subject to "jizya", a practice where the local sheykh's men would pick over their property and take what they liked (within customary limits on how much they could take). To an American, of course, this is very much reminiscent of the rules imposed on southern blacks to remind them of their second-class status.
The Balfour Declaration promised that the encouragement of Jewish migration to Palestine should be "without prejudice to the existing rights of the native communities", but the British were not going to allow "dhimmitude" to continue. Naively, they thought there could be a unitary state there with equal citizenship for members of all religions. The natives thought only in terms of which community would be the dominator, and assumed that if the Jews were not subordinated to the Muslims, then the Muslims would be subordinated to the Jews; this became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Certainly, European immigrants often quickly acquired an attitude of contempt for the Arabs; on both sides, cultural xenophobia was reinforced by a religious certitude that God is on OUR side.

"OK, it HAS been settled: the Palestinians lost. As long as they continue to insist that violence is the only way to settle it, they will continue to lose.
...and again, they are occupied, with no obvious source of redress"
But they were violent BEFORE they were occupied. You seem to be speaking of the situation since 1967: but the occupation of 1967 would not have happened if the Golan, West Bank, and Gaza had not been launching pads for rockets and raids for years before. What I had been speaking of was the situation in 1947-1951, when they had the recourse of negotiation, but destroyed that option by murdering everyone on their own side who was willing to talk.

"Were they to have assumed non-violence, they'd be a mere footnote, a problem known about by few and cared about by less."
No, they'd be an independent state.
The Palestinians are not the only people in the world who have ever lost a war or suffered occupations. The Lithuanians were occupied by the Russians for decades; they were not at all to blame for the war during which they got run over; the Russians drove lots of them into exile, planted settlers in their territory to make them a minority in their home, etc. etc. All during that time, not a single Lithuanian ever massacred a Russian schoolbus or threw an old Russian in a wheelchair into the sea or blew up a Russian nightclub or any of those other sick acts that Palestinians have made themselves famous. That is why Lithuania is an independent country now, and Palestine will not be any time soon.

"Your empathy with the powerless defending themselves as best they might is noted. "
Nothing that the Palestinians do is in the nature of "defending themselves". Their actions do not in any way protect Palestinians from harm, and certainly do nothing to lessen the willingness of Israelis to do them harm. It is all primitive lashing-out, entirely counterproductive, and I have no sympathy either for them or for those who make excuses for them.