3 Questions Zionism

Index :

The Palestinian Question

* The Land & Its People
* The Battle For Palestine (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=432456#post432456)
* The Consequences (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=432457#post432457)

The Jewish Question (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27665)

The Palestinian Question

A Land & Its People

A Temporary Or End Alternative For Palestine ?

N=I * As you clearly know nothing about Zionist ideology, you certainly do not know that the name of the whole movement comes from Zion = Jerusalem / Palestine, and we only considered alternative places because settlement in Palestine wasn't feasible at the time. So please do not argue with me about Zionist ideology, which you don't know the first thing about.

G-K * To who you are saying there is no knowledge of zionism ? Me ?

N=I * If you say that Zionism wasn't about the Land at all, then maybe you do know something about Zionism - distorted, false information you have been fed by your media and government, like most of the Arab World.

G-K * Who the hell said that zionism wasnt about "the land" ? BTW at first it actually wasnt , y'all were supposed to go to Argentina first , Uganda second .

N=I * OK. As you don't know, because you didn't bother to read further, the Uganda proposal was rejected by a huge margin, and even the ones who brought it to vote said it was only a temporary refuge until we can come back to Zion.
There is no relevance of between a voting and the ideological issues of zionism that are being discussed , as ideological zionist conclusion do not depend on a voting .

The point you try to make is that zionism cannot be seen independant of Eretz Yisrael . In this point you are supported by US-Israel.Org (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Zionism/Uganda.html) .

Herzl himself proposed Uganda , and the acceptation of an alternative even being thinkable by the founder himself , would create probablity for alternatives longer than a mans life .

Your temporarity issue is being affirmed :

*Herzl made it clear that this program would not affect the ultimate aim of Zionism, a Jewish entity in the Land of Israel*

1) Do we have evidence of the fact that in Herzls eyes there is no such thing as an end-alternative for Palestine ?

In the Sixth Zionist Congress of 1903 he is said to have declared this . Do we have that text ? If so , is it necesarry for his political decleration during the for-last year of his life to be equal to his original concept of zionism ?

2) We do have another text written by Herzl in 1896 , Judenstaat (http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/6640/zion/judenstaadt.html) :

*PALESTINE OR ARGENTINE?

Shall we choose Palestine or Argentine? We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by Jewish public opinion. The Society will determine both these points.

Argentine is one of the most fertile countries in the world, extends over a vast area, has a sparse population and a mild climate. The Argentine Republic would derive considerable profit from the cession of a portion of its territory to us. The present infiltration of Jews has certainly produced some discontent, and it would be necessary to enlighten the Republic on the intrinsic difference of the new movement.

Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. The sanctuaries of Christendom would be safeguarded by assigning to them an extra-territorial status such as is well-known to the law of nations. We should form a guard of honor about these sanctuaries, answering for the fulfillment of this duty with our existence. This guard of honor would be the great symbol of the solution of the Jewish question after eighteen centuries of Jewish suffering.

From this IMO can be concluded that perhaps Herzl preferred Palestine , as he should considering the fact that it would go better with Hebraium Nationalism . Witch leads us to another question : How did Herzl stand against Hebraium Nationalism ?

We know that that Leo Pinsker (I do hope you understand his relevance) didnt go with no alternative to Palestine :

From Zionism Before Herzl (http://www.aj6.org/sense/79jan/4.shtml) the following is made notice :

*His philosophy was that Palestine was not suitable for mass immigration and that Jews could not become real farmers but that the country should be allowed to develop gradually and become a spiritual centre for Judaism rather than the national state of the whole Jewish People.*

From Political Zionism (http://countrystudies.us/israel/9.htm) the following is made notice :

*Jews must organize themselves to find their own national home wherever possible, not necessarily in their ancestral home in the Holy Land. *

And on the general issue of political zionism from the same source :

*Political Zionism was emancipated West European Jewry's response to the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism and to the failure of the enlightenment to alter the status of the Jew. Its objective was the establishment of a Jewish homeland in any available territory--not necessarily in Palestine--through cooperation with the Great Powers.

3) There is an argument used by denials of Palestinian existence pre-zionism (pointing toward denial of genocide/diaspora) . The issues that form this disgusting argument can be used for IMO much better terms ,
as Theodor Herzl and the Uganda Plan (http://www.trincoll.edu/~kclark2/the_city_of_jerusalem.htm) shows and mentioned next :

*You talk of the Holy Land. In Goda's name what do you know about Palestine? I have been there and a more God-forsaken place there does not exist on this planet. How can a land thrive without water and whence can you find a supply for irrigation? The whole thing is pernicious nonsense, and what is more the advocates of the plan know it to be impossible .

As we know that in 100 years this wouldnt change itself , we are left with the option for an end-alternative considering Palestine in zionist ideology .

4) Witch brings me to another issue that makes the entire point meaningless in any ways Herzl turns out to be : optioning an end-alternative or a temporary one .

What relevance would an end desitination be in Eretz Yisrael before G-d appoints it to the Jews as the Torah perscribes ? How would there be any importance to the term "temporary" if that might be an entire millenia ? How would this entire attempt to a point of yours have any meaning ?

* You show prejudice on my knowledge of zionism . The relation between your prejudged accusation and actuality is so far off that one wonders if you would say exactly the same to absolutely anybody that would have issued the points I have . Assumed cause is the emotional snare that is being hit through my questioning and asserting .

* After having already responded 2 times in a context of reasonable zionist knowledge you fail to acknowledge the fact that I actually know something about what I write here . This shows the incapability of accepting reality as it conflicts with what your emotional system demands , thus producing unacceptability .

* You select specific points to refute , in hope of resulting into a convincing argument . However it does not result in truth , as the points you ignored (Argentina) is mostly essential .

With these 3 issues you are not promoting credibility .

One Big Happy PeopleG-K * The European Jew is not Hebrew Israelite . Heburaim Nationalism created the modern Hebrew Identity according to zionist ideals

N=I * The Jewish national identity has been existent for 3,500 years (unlike, for example, the Palestinian one, who is barely 100 years old.) Jews have always yearned for Israel, as is written in many places, such as the Bible, medieval Jewish poetry, and modern articles.

G-K * Also , nobody cares for Palestinian national authencity as there exists no Syrian no Iraqi no anything , all of this doesnt conflict in anyways with the fact that peoples have lived there without nationalist aspirations before EUROPEAN zionists came and took what the Brits had colonized .

N=I * So why is everyone angry about us "occupying" Palestinian territory? They are all one big happy people as you say. The issue dealt with the lack of relevance of you saying that Palestinian peoples exist for merely 100 years as almost all Arab nationalities exist for a short period of time . The fact that Palestinians are racially related closely to Syrians , Lebanse and Northern Iraqi's does not mean they are a happy familiy together nor does it mean they had any choice in becoming any family together.

In anyways your point is completely irellevant to the issue

You try to create some sort of justification for zionist colonization by pointing forward the argument that they might as well be in an other Arab nation . Yes they might but they were not . The fact that you might as well live elsewhere considering racial-cultural ties with elsewhere , does not give another from far more elsewhere the right to chase you out of the land , because G-d supposedly gave it to him while G-d doesnt even exist for him .

The original question of a Hebrew identity will be discussed in its proper location on this thread .

* You are missing the point by leaving the argument for dead and taking one other on .
* You are causing confusion by mixing up the new argument with the old one while the subjects are not interdependant nor within context of the issue .

Golda's Lie G-K * Palestine was INHABITED dont act like Golda and pretend it was some swamp . Your revisionism reminds me of the holocaust-type revisionism where they say the jews could have never been gassed because the holes in the shower-heads couldnt function efficiently enough . Disgusting .

N=I * Different from Golda, and from many Israelis, I totally respect the Palestinian right of self-definition and sovereignity, I just don't agree to eliminate my people and country in the process.

G-K * The same as Golda , you deny Palestinian existence pre-zionism . Simply by showing a difference in some other aspect doesnt change that in any
way . As for your disagreement , I understand very well that you dont agree with the elimination of your peoples and country , however you seem to have missed the entire point that your entire existance is because of elimination of OTHER peoples on a land that is not yours to take

N=I * Golda said the Palestinian identity is a lie. I say it's a new invention. And please, if you are so eager to prove things, prove me Palestinian existence pre-1918. The indigious peoples of Palestine existed before zionist invasion , you have admitted this yourself as you pointed out your supposed number of 200.000 (+-) inhabitants of the region .

What you rather question is the political creation of a national identity , witch indeed wasnt there as there was no Arab national identity (in that region) as there was Ottoman occupation . However this ofcourse does not mean that no peoples lived there , this only means no peoples lived there waving the Palestinian flag , but at the same time no peoples lived there waving the Syrian or any other flag Arab national flag . All those issued Arab nationalities are post-Ottoman imperial division witch has the Brittish-French Sykes-Picot deal at its basis .

Palestine-Syria-Iraq (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=408211.jpg)

* In here as elsewhere , in tradition of Golda you attempt to use semantical confusion to create another reality . In this case it is the ontological state of Palestinian peoples that you question , whereas merely a fabricated and obvious nationality-question is exposed by you .

In addition to be regarded is that the nationalist identity acknowledged by Western norms has no value whatsoever in terms the culture that has been the centre of Palestine for the last 1300 years : Edward Said mentiones in The Question Of Palestine :

"Palestine became a predominately Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century. Almost immediately thereafter its boundaries and its characteristics - including its name in Arabic, Filastin - became known to the entire Islamic world, as much for its fertility and beauty as for its religious significance...In 1516, Palestine became a province of the Ottoman Empire, but this made it no less fertile, no less Arab or Islamic...Sixty percent of the population was in agriculture; the balance was divided between townspeople and a relatively small nomadic group. All these people believed themselves to belong in a land called Palestine, despite their feelings that they were also members of a large Arab nation...Despite the steady arrival in Palestine of Jewish colonists after 1882, it is important to realize that not until the few weeks immediately preceding the establishment of Israel in the spring of 1948 was there ever anything other than a huge Arab majority. For example, the Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of 1,033,314 .

Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict-Jews For Justice In The Middle East (http://www.cactus48.com/OriginMSW.pdf)

The Swamp G-K * The "swamp" Palestine has been inhabited by Christian decendands of Arabs since Byzantium and Muslims as Arabs since the Khaliph throughout the Ottoman Empire . Almost half of indegious Palestinians were Christian Arabs before the zionists from Europe settled .

N=I * Jews - albeit in small numbers - have always lived in the Land, a thing that cannot be said on followers of any other religions, that did not exist when the first Jews settled the Land. Most contemporary Palestinians are descendants of people who arrived in the Land from all over the Arab World - some of them as workers for the Jewish settlers - in the second half of the 19th Century. For proof: in 1848 there were 250,000 people in the Land. In 1948, 900,000. No people can self-multiply so quickly. So here's proof of mass immigration.

G-K * * There were peoples in that land before the Hebrews came
* Some value the continuance more than the original , as far as religions go .

In anyways there is really no point in your justification of a European occupation by pointing to some ancient Hebrews who have lived there and have remained and mixed with the natives . Perhaps you didnt know but there is no difference between Arab Jews and Arab Christians or Arab Muslims , so Im not really seeing how todays person of any of those groups , as Arabs , have any more claim to that land . Also Zionism had little to do with Arab Jewry that lived in Palestine . Zionism is an European invention , stop hijacking a religion of other peoples to justify your un-religious actions .

* You provide no proof of mass Immigration , in Saudi the average mother has 8 children , only an average of 2.8 children per couple is enough to make 900.000 in 4 generations with is 100 years . However 5 generations isnt unthinkable either .

I wonder , since zionists complain about it non-stop : what is todays rate amongst palestinians? How many palestinian refugees have been born 50 years after the 700.000 diaspora ? So if your numbers are correct , your argument has been refuted .
I wont deny there was immigration , but dont imagine masses when they arent there .

N=I * First of all, I admit my statistics for 1948 were wrong, it was near 2 million. Second of all, earlier in my post I curiously challenged the fact that Arab Palestinian population was almost frozen during 300 years, then suddenly boomed 600% in a century. As you later on mention that of those 2 Million only 1.2 M were Arabs so I can dismiss this 2 M as an error yes ? Reasons can be given for a difference in reproduction or reproductive netto ammount in these different periods of time . Different motivations as well as circumstances can play such a role , in no way is such a boom impossible nor is there any proof provide of mass migration .

Why dont you ask yourself while there is a boom amongst Palestinians today as well ? Why dont you try to explain that as immigration ? There are great reasons from our culture's perspective to highly reproduce when threatened with extermination , the invasion of Zionism started in the 1980's created this threat , a threat that actualized itself in 1948 .

Whatever the reason may be , feritility was present so explains Justin McCarthy in his in his essay Palestine's Population During The Ottoman And The British Mandate Periods (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story559.html#Table%201) :

Since the middle of the nineteenth century, and probably long before, the proportion of children born to the Palestinian Arabs-their fertility-has been among the highest recorded for any population. The average number of children born to a Palestinian woman who lived through her childbearing years (the total fertility rate [TFR]) was slightly more than 7. The high fertility of Palestinians living in Palestine remained constant from Ottoman times until the late 1970s, when it began to diverge by regions

Any migrative movement is never strong enough to become the centre case of the Palestinian question . The offspring of the indegious peoples of Palestine are already in that position .

In the Ottoman and Mandate periods, migration was a minor factor in the demographic makeup of the Muslim and Christian (though obviously not the Jewish) population of Palestine. Although there was a certain amount of seasonal labor migration to and from Palestine, analysis of Ottoman statistics (McCarthy, 1990) yields evidence of little permanent migration of Arabs into or out of Palestine from 1860 to 1914. Mandate authorities did not record migration properly before 1932; non-Jewish immigration was recorded fairly well, but not emigration. Statistics indicate that only 838 more Muslims entered Palestine than left from 1932 to 1946.

The Other Palestinians

Oftenly is forgotten that in Palestine many Arabs have been of Christian faith , these Arabs have suffered as much from Zionist occupation as any other non-Zionist peoples in the region of subject . Christians and Muslims have lived peacefully amongst eachother for centuries and continue to do so as described by Prof Bernard Sabella (http://www.al-bushra.org/holyland/sabella.htm) :

This tradition of good Christian-Moslem relations has evolved through centuries of coexistence and exchange in the cities of Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Ramallah and in the rural areas such as Zababdeh, BirZeit and other towns and villages where Moslems and Christians live side by side and interact in their pursuit of daily pre-occupations and concerns.

Moshe Ma'oz explains in his book Middle Eastern Minorities , Between Intergration & Conflict (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/exec/maozexec.htm) :

Christian-Muslim relations in historic Palestine date back to the seventh century Islamic conquest. Christians living in Palestine at that time were arabized. By the twentieth century, a number of Christian Arab intellectuals strove to create a common nonsectarian basis with their Muslim Arab compatriots. They did so by working to revive the Arabic language and culture; introducing fresh patriotic and nationalist ideas; and stressing the potential common threat posed by Jewish Zionist immigrants, who had started to arrive in the early 1880s. In fact, Christian Arabs became leading figures in the pan-Arab, and later Palestinian Arab, nationalist movement. The perceived challenge of the Jewish Zionist minority continued to be a major incentive for Muslim-Christian solidarity, particularly among the elites in the Palestinian national community.
And this very day Christian Palestine considers itself subject of the Arab struggle for freedom , as they are active within todays Palestinian 'terrorist' organizations : PFLP , PFLP-GC & DFLP .

The Battle For Palestine

http://www.angelfire.com/wv/holistic/israel2.jpg

Colonizing In PeaceN=I * We were happy to find a way to live in peace in a place where no one could destroy us because of what we are. The Palestinians got a land completely proportionate to the size of their population, but they were so disgusted by the idea that they began a campaign to throw us into the sea. We agreed to live side by side with them; they didn't. These are the plain facts. G-K * No you werent happy to live in peace because you were the ones declaring a Jewish state

N=I * As was allowed to us by the UN. Palestinians didn't declare a state. Their problem.The question is not weither they can have a state as well , the question is weither you can have one . The UN has no authority over Arab land only Arabs have such : the UN is a farce and has always been such . Democratic values demand that native inhabitants of a land ought to have the right for self determination . The fact that others sell them out does not justify colonist zionists to invade and inhabit a land that is already inhabited by another peoples . What if the UN would give the piece you live on today to an Indonesian Muslim peoples , say from Aceh as their new homeland and tomorrow they come in by numbers threatning your very independant existance ? You would fight and you would fight a justified battle as do today Palestinian-Arab -Muslims , -Christians , and hopefully one day , Jews as well .G-K * and chasing peoples out destroying 400+ villages

N=I * ...out of which people were shooting at us continuously. The only reason Palestinians didn't destroy 400+ Jewish settlements is because we defended them well. As they should since you are invading their villages and occupying their land forming a threat to their very existance , however they were nothing against the gangs of psychotic lunatics . There has been no moral justification for the zionists other than the law of the beasts , the just one remains standing . Indeed the only reason the settlements were not destroyed is because you defended them well , but how exactly show your settlement-defence capabilities any of the moral ground for justification of your actions ? G-K * Palestinian land proportionate to the size of the population is of no relevance whatsoever as there is no place for European settlers to decide a proportionat land for a indegious peoples .

* I havent seen any facts with you ,and you havent presented any material just your personal conviction of how your all about peace and happyness .

N=I * Indigenous. In 1550 there were 220,000 people in the Land. In 1850 250,000. In 1948 (I have presented wrong statistics before) - nearly 2 million. Out of which 1.2 million Arabs. I guess the Arabs of the late 19th Century suddenly discovered the joy of expanding population. Or the mass-immigrated as I claimed.
Your presentation of the 250.000 in 1850 (there are recorded 411.11 in 1860) compared to the 1.2 Million in 1948 remains as invalid as ever in the purpose of proving such mass migration (and Im not denying any migration) . In 100 years there are at the very least 4 generations , an increase of 500% in 4 or 5 generations in that period would not be 2 uncommon in compare of surrounding areas .

Secondly , fighting a war is in that area a strong motivation to expand population . And surely there is already space for a strong family within Islamic perspective that creates options .

Thirdly , the period of stagnation you mention was under Ottoman rule witch has influence on various potential issues like health , political options , wealth etc .

Ofcourse as we again care to look at the issue , the fertility rate has been around 7 from halfway the 19th century untill the 1970’s . Mass-immigration is a lie the numbers are there for everyone to see and calculate : Palestine's Population During The Ottoman And The British Mandate Periods (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story559.html)
Resistance & Colonialism Pre-1948 G-K * Do you actually condemn Arab rebellion against Brittish colonizers ?

N=I * I can, because Palestine wasn't part of the British Empire, its citizens weren't forced to bear British identity, and so it was not Colonialism. Speaking of Colonialism, I'd like to present something that should logically prevent you from keeping calling Zionism a colonialistic movement, though it probably wouldn't.

Colonialism (American Heritage Dictionary): A policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies.

I fail to find the nation which maintained or extended its control over Palestine in 1948. The issue of ethical dismissal of Brittain invasion and occupation of Arab land does not lie within the semantical correspondence to the word “colonialism� .

The ethical judgement that is made to justify Arab rebellion against its occupyers is not determined by an enforced Brittish identity nor being oficially part of the Brittish empire .

The same point can be made on the application of colonialism as a term on the zionist occupation of Arab land . In order for it to be morally dismissable there is no reliance on a motherland or such .

* You attempt to transform semantical errors into ethical errors , you understand there is no logics in this as the ethical question remains untouched independant of its semantical definition .

G-K * And no , I mean u can say Arabs did this Arabs did that , dispite the fact that you havent any evidence of higher numbers (btw why do u compare 2 men with an entire culture of peoples ? ) there is absolutely no logics for such , you wouldnt be here to talk if it all was so . I think you are amazing in your attempts to justify your zionist position independant of what your zionist position is .

N=I * Jaffa riots of 1921. The riots of 1929, including the Hebron Massacre and the massacre near the Wailing Wall. Arab Rebellion of 1936-39. All these left hundreds of Jews dead.

http://cvu.strath.ac.uk/~tomlin_t/pal_chron.html
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ma...ots_1920-21.php
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_riots_1929.php
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ma...ots_1936-39.php

Bring me comparable reports of Jewish violence. Arab rebellion against a foreign occupier is justified when such accurs , based on the positionary difference . Such matters ought to be considered defensive whenever indeed there is resistance and not racist or religious aggression . If you speak of attacks against non-zionist native Arab Jews then yes indeed the aggression against them is completely misplaced and condamnable . However at least in the vast majorities of the conflicts were directed against an occupier .

You ask of me for Jewish violence comparable , how about zionist massacres that go far beyond ?

Zionist Massacres from 1937 to 1994 (http://en.falastiny.net/books/massacres/massacres1.htm)

Zionist Massacres from December 1987 through August 2000 (http://en.falastiny.net/books/massacres/massacres2.htm)

Zionist Massacres from September 2000 through July 2001 (http://en.falastiny.net/books/massacres/massacres3.htm)

* It is quite obvious that attempts to marginalize zionist violence against indigious inhabitants of Palestine through presenting ancient examples of justifyable peoples resistance against a foreign occupyer end nowhere . i am sure that deep down somewhere you have awareness of this .

Genocide N=I * Genocide is a term for widespread murder. You can barely say we killed 700,000 Palestinians.

G-K * Murder doesnt start at 700.000 neither does genocide .

N=I * I didn't get what you mean. Whatever Zionists did still doesn't amount to genocide. Genocide is not defined by killing peoples starting at 700.000 . You did not need to kill 700.000 peoples to be guilty of genocide . Massacaring hundreds in their own villages is wide-spreaded enough to be considered genocide . And in addition to this with involvement of the diaspora it has caused we can accuratly speak of ethnic cleansing .

* By excluding zionist action from moral judgement (you say whatever they did) you show your bias self and disprove any claim for credibility you may have .

These are crimes that Zionism is responsible for :

And I began to find out about the barbaric methods used to rid the fledgling state of as many Palestinians as possible. The world recoils today at the thought of bacteriological warfare, but Israel was probably the first to actually use it in the Middle East. In the 1948 war, Jewish forces would empty Arab villages of their populations, often by threats, sometimes by just gunning down a half-dozen unarmed Arabs as examples to the rest. To make sure the Arabs couldn't return to make a fresh life for themselves in these villages, the Israelis put typhus and dysentery bacteria into the water wells.

Uri Mileshtin, an official historian for the Israeli Defense Force, has written and spoken about the use of bacteriological agents. According to Mileshtin, Moshe Dayan, a division commander at the time, gave orders in 1948 to remove Arabs from their villages, bulldoze their homes, and render water wells unusable with typhus and dysentery bacteria.

Acre was so situated that it could practically defend itself with one big gun, so the Haganah put bacteria into the spring that fed the town. The spring was called Capri and it ran from the north near a kibbutz. The Haganah put typhus bacteria into the water going to Acre, the people got sick, and the Jewish forces occupied Acre. This worked so well that they sent a Haganah division dressed as Arabs into Gaza, where there were Egyptian forces, and the Egyptians caught them putting two cans of bacteria, typhus and dysentery, into the water supply in wanton disregard of the civilian population. "In war, there is no sentiment," one of the captured Haganah men was quoted as saying.

Naem Giladi – Iraqi Jew – Ex-Zionist Underground (http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/articles/iraqijews.htm )

Cause Of The Diaspora G-K * The Palestinian peoples diaspora was not because of Arab incitement but zionist genocide .

N=I * Arab-incited war -> Palestinians running away, prepared to return as soon as Israel is annihilated -> Israel is not annihilated -> Palestinian diaspora created.

G-K * When did the war start and when did the diaspora start . Can you give me dates where the diaspora follows the war ?

N=I * Until 14.5.1948 no Palestinian ran away. Only when the Arab countries invaded the Land did the Palestinians flee, assured to return when the Zionists are crushed.

The first stage of flight of refugees discussed is between december 1947 and march 1948 . This was when Yishuv was on the defensive and upper-and middle-class Palestinian Arabs fled mainly from mixed cities . The numbers in this flight ammount 75.000 peoples .

In 1948 the exodus from Tiberias was on April 17-18 , from Jaffa it was between April 21-Mei 1 . All this before any socalled incitement to leave Palestine by outside Arab leaders .

Benny Morris – Righteous Victims (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story592.html)

The cause of the diaspora is not in any way Arab incitement to leave , but horrific massacres performed by the zionist gangs of lunatics as previously has been mentioned , for instance let us not forget about the solang denied Deir Yassin massacre that accured on April 9 . There is no logic in a person leaving a history behind because of a promis , there is quite some logic in a person leaving a history behind because his existance is being threatend . Also the zionist leaders (the left) had no issue in ethnic cleansement of Palestinians , nor had they any issue in looting and plundering their homes and destroying their villages as they chased them out of their homes .

David Ben Gurion in 1938 mentioned the following :

I support compulsory [Palestinian Arab population] transfer. I do not see in it anything immoral

Obviously consciousness is shown on the issue in its consequences , by David Ben Gurion in 1944 as he cares to mention this :

When I heard these things. . . I had to ponder the matter long and hard ....[but] I reached the conclusion that this matter [had best] remain [in the Labor Party Program] . . . Were I asked what should be our program, it would not occur to me to tell them transfer . . . because speaking about the matter might harm [us] . . . in world opinion, because it might give the impression that there is no room in the Land of Israel without ousting the Arabs [and] . . . it would alert and antagonize the Arabs .

And ofcourse Ben Gurion was very happy with the results of the ethnic cleansement as he spoke on Jerusalem 3 months into the war of 1948 and mentioned that there were :

no strangers [Palestinian Arabs]. Not since Jerusalem's destruction in the days of the Romans has it been so Jewish. . . . I do not assume this will change. . . . And what happened in Jerusalem . . . could well happen in great parts of the country . . if we hold one, it is very possible that in coming six to eight or ten months of the war there will take place great changes. . . . Certainly there will be great changes in the composition of the population of the country.

Moshe Sharet did not seem to have great issues with the project either : Transfer could be the crowning achievements, the final stage in the development of [our] policy, but certainly not the point of departure. By [speaking publicly and prematurely] we could mobilizing vast forces against the matter and cause it to fail, in advance. When the Jewish state is established--it is very possible that the result will be transfer of Arabs

Zionist Transfer Policy (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story562.html#Zionist%20Transfer%20Policy)

In conclusion :

*The diaspora started before any Arab hope and attempts for destruction of the zionist state accured .

* In the period before and during the start of the diaspora various massacres accured comitted by mostly the lunatic gangs that had an effect on simple village peoples as one can imagine .

* The zionist leaders (of the left even) had no issues with the removal of Arabs from the socalled “holy land� whatsoever .

There is absolutely not even the slightest argument one can stand on to claim that not the zionist agression against peoples have caused the diaspora , but some calls by Arab leaders to leave the land .

* The sad part is that inspite of the available documentation and simple logical context one can coprehend , not even a recent event as Kosovo on ethnic cleansement that shows perfectly how peoples leave as their existance is threatened , can create a perspective that defeats the so obvious zionist indoctrination combined with emotional bias attachement there is toward the subject . Nevertheless it does not become less true when denied more .G-K * Anyways Arabs incited war against an occupyer , you are not indegious population but a colonist without a motherland .

N=I * As I have showed above, saying "colonist without a motherland" is like saying "cheese without milk". It is not at all as the facts that are necesary to morally condemn the actions we describe as colonization do not in any way change without that milk , without that semantical correctness of having a motherland . This entire issue is explained elsewhere . Wheretoo ? G-K * And no they didnt all flee into neighbouring countries , as if that would even matter

http://mondediplo.com/maps/IMG/arton2071.jpg

N=I * Conveniently enough, this map doesn't show 3.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, 2.5-3 million in Jordan, and more hundreds of thousands in Syria and Lebanon. But as you said (seeing how weak this argument of yours was), it doesn't matter.G-K * That is not convenience that is the whole point , you claim that they all went to the neighbouring countries and I show they didnt . Do you actually have in your mind that i would deny the millions in Gaza & WB & the surrounding countrie ?

The fact it doesnt matter doesnt show weakness of my argument , it shows the weakness of your point IF you would have one witch you dont .

N=I * No, you simply ignored the fact that the number of refugees in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Jordan or in Lebanon is bigger than the number of Palestinians in all other countries combined. And we're talking 50 years after the war, when not the original Palestinians are those living in the United States and South America, but their children and Your original assertion was not that the majority fled into the region but that everybody did so . This was the issue and this is what has been refuted . Nobody is ignoring that the refugees in the surrounding area are far bigger in nuymbers , it is only logical they are so why would you think anybody would deny such a thing ? What political point is made by saying they all went to Canada instead of Jordan ?

G-K * Instead of blabla tell me why it matters that they fled into neighbouring countries ? Because they are Arab ? So it would be like , their land ? Oh my your trail of thought is so predictive .

N=I * It matters because they fled to a nearby friendly country, from which they would be able to easily return into "liberated" Palestine. And as history shows, it didn't happen. If my thoughts are so predictive, you could just write my entire post yourself, and not bother waiting for me to answer. I dont see geographical restrictions in distance in this modern age , rather I see an advantage in finance in the first world witch would facilitate a return somuch better then from a poor financial context . * Your attempt to create points out of pointless information is beyond bias , I did not try to make a point as there was not one , I only corrected your false asserion .
* From predicting to fabricating there is a distance

A Fair BattleN=I * It's funny how we, with half the size of the Arab population and barely any weapons at all, made the Palestinians run away. During a war that they started. Colonial celebration? G-K * You made them run away because you had your capable Haganah , and your lunatic gangs of Irgun and Lehi .

N=I * So you are accusing us of being capable to defend ourselves? Are we to blame because we were better at self-defence than the Arabs? Your technical defintion of defense is completely irellevant because of the political situation and relation between the indigious population and a foreign occupyer .

A burgler in my house shooting back at me out of self defence has really no ethical claim based on his defensive grounds . His position of being a burglar in my house ruins this for him .

Also the gangs mentioned where aside of self-defence highly active in offensive massacres , I do not believe that driving through a village while emptying your machinegun would count as self-defensive . G-K * Dont equalize Palestinian peoples with Arab armies . You have this huge issue with holding things seperate dont you ?
You know whats really funny ? That today Palestinians have their own militias too .

N=I * I didn't say a word about Arab armies. The Arab Palestinian population itself was twice the Jewish one. The size of the indigious population compared to the size of the occupying population does not leave room to conclude an expectation of standing a chance against the zionist violence . There is no compare between a simple inhabitant of an Arab village against the psychoticly brutal violence of an Irgun or Lehi combatant * Once more semantical confusement (self-defence) is being used
in order to create ethical ground . Aside of that the mere claim for a technical self-defence is not fully accurat as well .
* The attempt to prove a fair (or unfair for the occupyer even) battle through mere numbers of inhabitants of the 2 parties is simplistic beyond all military levels . This is not 15000 BC .
* The origin of this issue you bring forth shows in general of lack of empathy and a huge ammount of ethical egoism . Sad

The Consequences

Dancing On The StreetsN=I * the Jewish people were so happy about the idea of a peaceful solution to the problem of Palestine that they were dancing while the Arabs started a war over it.

G-K * Arabs werent familliar with peacefull robbing and murdering , hey its not your fault they dont know .
Im sorry but what you expect here is peoples to have accepted and join your party of colonization . You would probably have no clue what im talking about , but you remind me of Mladic . N=I * They were familiar with their own kind of robbing and murdering. Which they have been steadily following for at least thirty years before 1948. I could give you specific dates and locations, but you won't believe me anyway.

G-K * You sure as hell cant show me 400 Jewish villages that has been destroyed by Arab Muslim & Arab Christians . Do you think I wouldnt believe anti-zionist or even anti-jewish (Arab Jewish) autrocities ?

* You obviously dont care for quantity
* You obviously dont care for original aggression

N=I * Of course. Arabs were satisfied with murdering Jews, they left the settlements alone * There is a difference of context dealing with occupying or revolting occupation . The Jews were zionists , and I am sure non-zionist Jews have been murdered as well as Arabs have their racists and psychopaths amongst their peoples as anyone else has , including Jewry of any kind .

* There is a quantity difference that has relevance in sofar that Palestinian-Arab violence becomes marginal in compare to what they receive .

the difference : native village peoples VS foreign settlement militiasN=I * Out of sheer interest, I went and read about Mladic. Who, if we are talking pre-48, is much more comparable to the Arab leaders of that time.

G-K * Obviously you have read but have not discovered the clue . Im not giving it away so u go on re-searching , perhaps you should start with Srebrenica and the huge party there .

And why do you compare him to Arab leaders ? Because you expect me to defend them ? Oh my how foolish can you be .

N=I * You are consistently avoiding challenging what Arabs did pre-48. I wonder why. Mladic made the Dutch UN peacekeeping troops Srebrenica dance and drink as he seperated 7000 males and murdered them . As massacres occured to scare away the peoples of Palestine you were dancing and drinking to with joy , and you expect the Arabs to do the same thing .

I am not avoiding Arab behaviour (be it civillian or governmental) before 48 as I am in liberty to embrace it as righteous as well as condemn it as devellish . The question stands why there is a compare of Mladic toward Arab leaders as Arab leaders can just as Mladic easily be condemned . * You confuse your disability to let go with my ability to seperate . It is you who has issues condemning your zionists not me having issues condemning Arab nationalist or religious leaders .

The ChildrenN=I * I watch the media, with all the diverse opinions, and decide what my private opinion is. You watch the media, and decide what they tell you (us murdering Palestinian babies for no apparent reason, for example) is the absolute truth.

G-K * What apparent reason can there be for murdering babies ?

N=I * I don't know, but I think you should ask the sniper who shot a 10-month old baby as she was walking in the street. (I know, I know, you have examples enough to show that Israel murders babies too. I'm very familiar with those.)
G-K * Its not "too" , its 7 times as many in the very least .

N=I * Even Palestinian sources never claimed to more than a 1:3 casualty ratio, so you are even surpassing your friends in your exaggeration. As we were talking about babies and todays actual events and I had the acces to the information of minors in this Intifada I made that assertion and I did so quite careless : I am sorry if I did not specify it clearly , so I will now :

94 Israeli vs 455 Palestinians = 1/4.8

Source (http://www.rememberthesechildren.com/children_remembered.html)

In anyways the point is made that for mudering children 79% is Israeli responsibility . It goes nicely in the line of the IDF’s favorite hobby , terrorizing childern :

http://www.intifada.com/frightened.jpegG-K * And 10 month old babies dont walk down the street .

N=I * She was walking down the street with her father. You are so in lack of good responses you turn to the most idiotic excuses to make me seem like a fool. The point is that she still doesnt walk at 10 months of age but yes you are right when you feel ridiculed at every little thing you say , and indeed this isnt necesary . However the quality of my other responses has little to do with this .* Let us get back to your original assertion of me following media blindly , an assertion u have made more than once . Since your only backing for this is your disagreement with my response , there is little that you can bring in that makes this asserion a valid point . If you would allow yourself to view this discussion and this situation a little more objective you would find I havent shown hardly any media-dependance while you on the other hand have shown massive pro-zionism indoctrination and bias . This you have done by showing the irellevantness of points weither they are true or false toward your opinion on the issues .

But what about Jordan ? N=I * Jordan occupied Palestinian territory and gave citizens of the West Bank Jordanian identities, meaning complete conquest without any room for a future Palestinian homeland. Israel occupied Jordanian territory containing Jordanian citizens of Palestinian ancestry, didn't officially annex the area, and now gives self rule to the residents on the way for an independent state. No one argued with Jordan. When Israel came, suddenly this whole Palestinian issue rised. Surprising.G-K * Hey one likes to get colonized better by his own peoples than by foreigners I would say .

N=I * But they're not the same people, of course, because Palestinians are a proud, independent people. Funny though you finally used the word "colonized" in relation to someone but Israel.They are not the same peoples in the sense that they're land is not the same land , and in these post-imperial days of mapmaking all they share is a cultural and perhaps racial identity . This does not make them any less independant , as you would wish . More importantly , as you respond on their preferance , they’re sameness is closer than the one they would share with you as Israel . To them this is a preferance of ruling , and this is only natural .

I have absolutely no issues using the word colonization in respect to any other colonizers aside Israel , as Amerikans certain Europeans and indeed Arabs as well .

I have no issues whatsoever objectively judging and condamning actions of my peoples governments or even my peoples themselves , in opposite to your incapability to see the fundamental errors of your ideology and its history .G-K * Why do you feel the need to point out to OTHERS errors to justify your own ?

N=I * Because you fail to point to other who do things who are much worse than Israel, yet you don't criticize them. That's hypocrisy for me. It is not hypocricy as I do not judge them any less merely because I judge you . Perhaps they are much worse even as they make an enemy their own brothers and sisters . However none of this in any way lightens the weight of responsibility Israel carries for its 55 years of state-history and the zionist years before that . * Anothers errors toward a peoples are not your justification of doing the same toward those peoples .

Over ?G-K * the conflict is far from finished

N=I * 1948 War is over. And we won. The conflict is not the war from 1948 , the conflict has not ended yet and will not end untill it can choose from living in peace or destroying you in order to live in peace . 1948 was the beginning of a new fase , 1994 was the beginning of the fase we are in today . The conflict will be over only when the native peoples of Palestina will have the possibility to live in peace through freedom and equality , with or without the zionist state : The choice is yours to make .

The Jews won, Israel exists, the Palestinians have a place in the West Bank and Gaza, the UN recognizes Israel as a valid state, or does UN authority only apply when it serves Arab interests?

You ask questions that have already been answered in the thread , you would know this if you would have actually read anything on it , which is the least what one can ask of you to do before you respond on this thread .

If you have nothing to contribute but your personal opinion that can go anywhere anytime , your contribution is not appreciated .

Hell you can even go and look up some dictionary definitions if thats the best you can do .... it is better than this empty post .

Dont mind I notice the hipocracy on the UN-relevance question , afterall we can exchange "Arab" for "Amerikan" and we have a point thats not only accurate by very actual as well .

Dont count on Israel to exist forever , not even true Israel delivered such an accomplishment I doubt that these pseudo-Jews can compete .

another pool of ASCII vomit.
*clap clap*

you never get tired, don't you?

your jew/zionist hating propaganda is not worth spit, baboon boy.
i suggest to cure yourself of your misery by drowning yourself.

aaight? Ahmed?


re: pics you posted, i can find a million of those pics, showing the arabs in bad light. the problem with a pic, you don't know the circumstances of the events prior to that snap of time.

baboon

make up your own insults calling me what I have always been calling you is beyond pathetic

is not worth spit

You must worship me for all the copying of my phrases that you engage in you bathurst-ghetto yid

aaight?

that wont make u a Hebrew either you shmuk

Ahmed?

I am the most highly adored ? Well your copying gave that awy a little bit really .......

pics you posted, i can find a million of those pics, showing the arabs in bad light. the problem with a pic, you don't know the circumstances of the events prior to that snap of time.

Nobody cares nothing I have said depends on any pictures posted .

Its facinating that there is absolutely nothing that can even come close to having a chance to heal you of your pathetic indoctrination .

You are pathetic , go choke on zyklon like I told you to

Do u refuse to be enlightened? I mean why are u repressing reality here? It boggles my mind seriously it does.

Now to the thread I found it enlightening myself, I knew about Golda but her excesses of ignorance that ppl bought it shocking. Can someone explain to me where a swamp be located if Israel has farms due to irrigation? Shouldn't swamps exist naturally? Now the expansion into Jordan is so loved my the Israeli's:

http://www.rosenblumcoins.com/mailbids/mb33c/img/1139.JPG

Dreams, that may never come to fruition. :rolleyes:

Great work, Ghassan.

Still trying to process what I read :D

And I am just trying to get my eyes to stop bleeding. This happens every time I make the mistake of reading one of Ghassan's posts.

I am shocked u can even read clockwood!