Anyone know of unbiased sources on this topic? So far I've found List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_committed_during_the_1948_Arab-Israeli_war) which seems to indicate, as usual, that things are more complicated than, e.g.

Israel started killing innocent women and children first at Deir Yassin the massacred 100's . So if Isarel sets the the satndard Israel must also accept the consequences .

Zephyr:

Anyone know of unbiased sources on this topic?

No-one is unbiased. However, that does not mean that their claims are biased. Facts are facts.

As to a fair understanding of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, I'd try reading a rather neutral history book/encyclopaedia, and also books from both sides of the conflict.

Personally, I find that 1948 war quite easy to understand. Tens of thousands of Jews immigrated illegally into a land where they were not welcome. They had a contempt for Arab culture, and the Muslim religion. They boycotted Arab businesses. They used any means necessary to bulldoze settlements, annex land, and drive the Palestinians out of employment.
The final insult to the the Arabs came when the U.N (ergo. the U.S) granted over half of Palestine to the immigrant Jews due to Zionist lobbying. So the Arabs got pissed, and protested. Meanwhile, the Israelis initiated Plan Dalet, which aimed to take far more land than given to them in the U.N mandate. Both sides fought, and the Jewish invaders came out on top.

I have no doubt that each side committed their share of atrocities. Yet the situations are not parallel, for the simple reason that the European Jews were the invaders, whereas the Palestinians were the indigenous inhabitants. And quite simply, the Israelis engaged in systematic genocide and ethnic cleansing, in order to push the Palestinians out of Palestine and form a Jewish-only state. After all, you can't have a Jewish-only state with those pesky non-Jews (Goyim) around.

For a good summary, read "The Ordeal of the Palestinians" by David Gilmour.

Mountainhare: Balfour. There was a legal commitment that the British reneged on.

"One nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third nation” - Arther Koestles, Promise and fulfillment, London, 1949, P-4 (regarding the existence of Israel over Palestinian land given to them by the British.)

That wouldn't be Arthur Koestler would it?

yeah, typo, thanks

Wikipedia and its mirrors are probably the only unbiased sources. Try those.

Ophiolite:

Mountainhare: Balfour. There was a legal commitment that the British reneged on.

Umm, no. Just no. Bone up on this material before flapping your gums.

Britain had only one commitment, and that was to the Arabs. Read up about the Hussein-McMahon correspondance. Read up about how the British promised the Arabs the unification and independence of their lands, if they rose up against their Ottoman overlords. More specifically, the Hussein-McMahon agreement granted Hussein all Arab land in which to form his independent Arab state, except for three areas. These included the wilayets (Ottoman provinces) of Basra and Baghdad, the Turkish districts of Alexandretta and Mersin, and most importantly, portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo.
Note that the Hussein-McMahon correspondance promised Palestine to the Arabs.

Then read up about the Sykes-Picot agreement, where Britain and France conspired to split up and occupy the Arab lands. Read up about the Treaty of Sevres, where the British stabbed the Arabs in the back by carrying out the Sykes-Picot plan.

As to the Balfour Declaration, that 'legal commitment' was effectively void, because Palestine did not belong to the Jews at the time the Balfour Declaration was made. It actually belonged to the Ottoman's. So this effectively nullified the 'legal commitment'.

You are aware that both the Ottoman's, and then the British, made Jewish immigration to Palestine illegal, right? And that the Jews came in anyway, right? And that the Jews were responsible for continuous terrorist attacks against the West while attempting to form their Jewish only state, right?

Hapsburg:

Wikipedia and its mirrors are probably the only unbiased sources.

Wrong. In fact, Wikipedia is rather unreliable, because anyone can edit it.

Wrong. In fact, Wikipedia is rather unreliable, because anyone can edit it.
Actually, just last year, a study was done, and wikipedia was proven to be just as reliable, if not moreso than, the Encylopedia Britannica. All of the information is referenced, all of the articles are moderated, and moderators and administators edit them constantly to maintain them as neutral, informative pages.

Hapsburg:

Actually, just last year, a study was done, and wikipedia was proven to be just as reliable, if not moreso than, the Encylopedia Britannica.

1. Who done this study?

2. How did they come to the above conclusion?

Umm, no. Just no. Bone up on this material before flapping your gums.Umm, yes.
This was traditional British diplomacy. Make promises to both sides, then abandon the one with the weaker hand.
That the Balfour Declaration is contentious is not in dispute. That it is automatically void as you suggest is pure nonsense.
It provided a legal justification for Jewish immigration. The subsequent real politik manouverings of British governments do not negate this, but rather establish the contradictions and dichotomies that have plagued the Middle East since.

Ophiolite:

It provided a legal justification for Jewish immigration.

*sighs* What part of 'the Declaration was null' do you not understand? Do you need me to draw diagrams to explain that because the land belonged to Turkey (under the pact of the League of Nations), the BRITISH could not make laws regarding who could immigrate to that land? You can't make laws which establish a homeland for a third party in a country which isn't yours. This is just damn common sense.

If a declaration is null, it has no legal power.

I challenge you to justify how a declaration made by the British in 1917 (when Turkey owned the land) is legal justification for Jewish immigration to said land during the 1930's and 1940's. Especially given that the British made Jewish immigration to Palestine ILLEGAL during the 1930's and 1940's.

I thought you knew that just shouting louder and repeating the same thing, over and over, doesn't work with me.

Who won the First World War? Which side was Turkey on? Who determines the diposition of the spoils at the end of a war, the winners or the losers?

The Delcaration was not null simply because you say it was.

I already stated the Britain had reneged on the agreement. That is part of my argument, so I fail to see how restating it supports yours.

Ophiolite:

The Delcaration was not null simply because you say it was.

Ahh, but I've supported why the Declaration is null. Apparently you have trouble grasping the concept that because Palestine belonged to Turkey (under the pact of the League of Nations) at the time the Balfour Declaration was made, the 'law' was effectively null.
You can't lawfully promise that someone can form a homeland on a piece of land which isn't yours. You don't have the jurisdiction to pass such laws.
And please note that even after the Ottoman Empire was toppled, the British DID NOT own Palestine.


That is part of my argument, so I fail to see how restating it supports yours.

I don't have a foggy clue as to what your argument is. Perhaps you should clarify. Are you saying that the European Jews had a right to invade, steal land, and ethnically cleanse the inhabitants, because the British gave them permission to do so?!

Actually, just last year, a study was done, and wikipedia was proven to be just as reliable, if not moreso than, the Encylopedia Britannica. All of the information is referenced, all of the articles are moderated, and moderators and administators edit them constantly to maintain them as neutral, informative pages.

Wikipedia is good when it comes to technical and informative pieces, however when the issue is politics and religion wikipedia is very unreliable. Many of the pages on Islam are very biased. Infact, they are one of the most biased sources of information of Islam on the web. The pages on Palestine and Arabs have an obvious pro-Israeli slant.

It was my understanding that the British made promises to both tht Arabs & the Jews in order to get their cooperation. As far as I know the promises made involved land belonging to the Ottoman Empire.

The pages on Palestine and Arabs have an obvious pro-Israeli slant.
And this is bad how? The pallies are the ones rebelling and causing the violence in the region, the israelis are simply fighting back. War is war. If you didn't want to reap the whirlwind, you shouldn't have called down the thunder.

The pallies are the ones rebelling and causing the violence in the region, the israelis are simply fighting back.

"The American Revolutionaries were the ones rebelling and causing violence in the region, the British were simply fighting back."

That's a vastly different case. The British were actually oppressing the American colonials, taxing them unfairly. Israel did no such thing, and only fired shots back when the pallies revolted.

That's a vastly different case. The British were actually oppressing the American colonials, taxing them unfairly.

The Israelis were oppressing the Palestinians, as well as trying to establish a Jewish-only homeland on their homes, gardens and villages.


Israel did no such thing, and only fired shots back when the pallies revolted.

Heh, you keep telling yourself that.

Really? What exactly did the Israelis do to the pallies before 1948, before the war between israel and a shitload of other countries bent on thier destruction?

Hapsburg:

What exactly did the Israelis do to the pallies before 1948

Gee. They sort of, ya know, tried to form a Jewish-only state on Palestinian land.

How would you respond to land theft and ethnic cleansing? If a bunch of Chinese immigrants bulldozed your house so that they could establish a 'Chinese-only' state, would you smile and give them fellatio?

So, you're basically saying that the Jews shouldn't have a homeland? That the Palestinians should violently destroy Israel, rather than both live together in peace?
My, how...antisemitic of you. :rolleyes:

Hapsburg:
So, you're basically saying that the Jews shouldn't have a homeland?

A difficult question. Do members of a particular religion need a homeland? Why can't they just integrate into pre-existing civilizations? America, the UK, and Australia are all great places for Jews.

Frankly, I don't care either way. They are welcome to a homeland (even though I would think it rather absurd), but don't go and establish your homeland on a pre-existing civilization. Imperialism and colonialism are no longer acceptable.


the Palestinians should violently destroy Israel, rather than both live together in peace?

I fully support the 'living together in peace' notion. But the Palestinians must govern the country, have right of return, and their land back.

This does not necessarily require the expulsion of the Jews, but merely a transition of power.


My, how...antisemitic of you

You are aware that many Arabs, including the Palestinians, are semitic, right? So if you really claim that I biased against a group, I'm still only favouring one semitic group over another. Ergo, I'm not an anti-semite.

So, you're basically saying that the Jews shouldn't have a homeland?

They sure can, but a nation created solely for a particular group of people should not be supported or recognized by the world community. And that nation should not infringe on any land already occupied by others.

A difficult question. Do members of a particular religion need a homeland? Why can't they just integrate into pre-existing civilizations? America, the UK, and Australia are all great places for Jews.
They did integrate to a large extent in Germany before the Holocaust; and after WWII America wasn't too keen on unlimited immigration, I heard. They certainly aren't keen on it now.

Zephyr:

They did integrate to a large extent in Germany before the Holocaust;

Not they didn't. 'Integration' is an alien concept to the vast majority of the European Jews, which is why they felt the need for a Jewish homeland. Perhaps if they underwent an attitude change, they wouldn't have felt the need for a homeland to escape from pissed residents of other countries.

So, you're basically saying that the Jews shouldn't have a homeland?
Why should a religious group have a homeland ?
When do the Palestinians get their homeland back ?

'Integration' is an alien concept to the vast majority of the European Jews
really (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskalah)?

Zephyr, what part of 'vast majority' don't you understand?

Define integration.

I was married to a Palestinian asylum seeker
I have Jewish relatives (maternal grandfather and large extended family)

my palestinian asylum seeker ex was not born in palestine (now Israel) he was born in kuwait, but in Arab culture the nationality passes through the father. So he was born without ANY country, he has all his life had to apply for visa's to be able to live anywhere, including arab countries who aren't any more sympathetic in reality to palestinians than anyone else with the exception of Mr Hussain who did give them citizenship in Iraq. His family are all over the place due to the visa problem, as u can't guarrantee any acceptance anywhere. life really is VERY difficult for them. And these are second generation not first.

Now while being against what israeli's had done to his people (depriving them of anywhere to live and passing this legacy to their children/grandchildren, so on so so on) he is not anti jew, in his religion, their males can marry any of the following: Christian/Jewish or Muslim and any religion of any type is better than none at all. So they are far from intolerant.

Meanhwhile Jews prefer to marry only Jews and believe they are the chosen people.

No, I'm not anti Jew either or pro Arab, just telling it how it is from personal viewpoint my relatives (who I adore) are mainly Jewish.

My ex and his family have no problem with this. ( I dislike my ex immensley by the way so no reason to be defending him other than stating what is true)

His family own £15 million pounds worth of land but live as paupers because they can't sell it as it is on israeli occupied land. If they sell to them, they'll be murdered by fellow palestinians, and they can't sell to palestinians.

Catch 22

That's the only balanced view of this whole sorry mess I have read on these forums. Thank you for sharing it with us TofR.

You are welcome, I am ignonant of the history (aside from what I have read here and of course my ex's detailed view of what occurred which actually seems to agree with yours)

Here is a story of how 2nd generation are affected. This individual is my ex's cousin, came here when he was 19 as an asylum seeker, he has been here now 10yrs.
(after 10yrs u get granted citizenship) few months before his 10yrs was up, homeoffice decided they wanted to deport him.

Background to him (higher tax bracket as high earner, valuable contributing member of society, never on benefits)

Question was deport him where? he has no country (again he was born in kuwait and all his family in kuwait) they can't deport him there as Kuwait WILL not accept him.
So where? They decided lebanon. Lebanons rules for this palestinian are as follows: You cannot get a job, you cannot use your own money to start a buisness, you cannot buy a house etc etc etc....he has no family there. despite all this, they wanted (and were quite determined went to court three times while they tried to overturn judges decision to let him stay) to take him away from his home of nearly 10yrs, his fiance, his job, his money and send him to a country he cannot work, cannot be self employed, cannot rely on relatives for fiancial aid, basically to send him to poverty and the streets of Lebanon? What does this now say about us?

Yes we are tolerant, we have the most leniant rules in world, but behind closed doors, what craziness goes on?

In the NHS I was aware of home office wanting to deport mothers (our patients) but keep their children here. Reason they won't allow children to be deported is it puts them at risk (starvation) but they'll force their mothers to leave the country while we forceably keep their kids! Yes this happens!

Crazy crazy world, we are all crazy

Sad thing is, people reading a balanced view might only see those bits that agree with their worldview...

Pro-Palestinian: That they are stateless and can't sell their land is Israel's fault for chasing them out.
Pro-Israeli: That they are stateless is the fault of Kuwaiti bureaucracy and that they can't sell their land is the fault of the Palestinians who would murder them.

Catch-22: they're both right. And by denying this, they're both wrong.

Sad thing is, people reading a balanced view might only see those bits that agree with their worldview...

Pro-Palestinian: That they are stateless and can't sell their land is Israel's fault for chasing them out.
Pro-Israeli: That they are stateless is the fault of Kuwaiti bureaucracy and that they can't sell their land is the fault of the Palestinians who would murder them.

Catch-22: they're both right. And by denying this, they're both wrong.

exactly right!

I am curious about Palestinian origins.

When were they in control of Palestine? Are they descendants of the Phoenicians or Samaritans or what?

Zephyr, what part of 'vast majority' don't you understand?

Oh so NOW you can understand "vast majority". Gotcha.

Geoff

I am curious about Palestinian origins.

When were they in control of Palestine? Are they descendants of the Phoenicians or Samaritans or what?

Basically both Jews and Palestinians are the autochthonous descendants of Caanites - both groups cohabited in Caanan about 3000 years ago. There is no real genetic differentiation between Palestinians, European Jews and Occidental Jews.

Geoff

No they didn't [integrate into Germany]. 'Integration' is an alien concept to the vast majority of the European Jews, which is why they felt the need for a Jewish homeland. Perhaps if they underwent an attitude change, they wouldn't have felt the need for a homeland to escape from pissed residents of other countries.

This is another of those "those damn Jews had the Holocaust coming" arguments, isn't it?

No shocker there. And the existing "attitude" for Jews then was "eyes down on the ground if a muslim walks by" AKA "dhimmitude" AKA "societal oppression" or "cultural slavery". I've already illustrated with the help of Diamond (many thanks) why this was an immensely unfair system, but you expect them to just accept it? Why?

Geoff

Actually, the jews in Germany had integrated quite well into the culture, especially in large industrial centers, like Berlin, Hamburg, Bonn, and Dresden.

Hm - good point also.

Geoff