If the Muslims would put down their guns, there would be peace in the Holy Land, should the Jewish Israelis put down their guns, Israel would cease to exist, is this not the underlying reality of that situation?

There wouldn't be peace in the Holy Land if the Muslims put down their guns as there's always someone who's power-hungry that will take advantage of the situation. Heck, just imagine if the U.S. put down their guns, or China, or Russia, or anyone else, heh, they'd just be taken over. There's no such thing as world peace, and there never will be, it's all a utopian dream. It's humane nature to always be in conflict with someone/thing, including themselves.

- N

If the Muslims would put down their guns, there would be peace in the Holy Land, should the Jewish Israelis put down their guns, Israel would cease to exist, is this not the underlying reality of that situation?
Hi ice age, thank you for your comments

the answer to your question is NO

~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

The Israelis have never taken land except when they were attacked first, so, learning from history (hopefully), if the Muslims put down their guns, their would be peace in the Holy Land.

Considering they have been persistant with settlements on Arab land...I am not so sure.

But yes, I don't trust the Arabs, either.

On the West Bank, who says that is Arab land?

Over a millennia of Arabic rule?

The fact that Israelis litterally kicked the Arabs out of their homes and put them into ghettos?

The Holy Land was a wilderness, a virtually uninhabited wasteland, when the nation of Israel was re-organized.

You should read Mark Twain's account of the Holy Land in the 1800's.

Over a millennia of Arabic rule?

The fact that Israelis litterally kicked the Arabs out of their homes and put them into ghettos?

thats one side of the story. the jewish community in the west bank is much more older then that of the arab, and it was the arabs who kicked the jews first. the ghettos is a nice word to describe it, but the reality is that the jewish population inside the west bank has less freedom of movement then the arab population. not to mention the fact, that constant arab terrorism was performed against the jews in the west bank, including the burning down of a synagogue yesterday.

most of the populatin that is now days called refugees , are actually arabs who wilingly left their homes in fear from the israeli army. the title refugee is given to all those who lived two years before 48:

of refugee is as a person "whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict,"

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

you should hear the other side, before you judge.

so as I see it: Palestinians got kicked out by Israelis who kicked out Palestinians for kicking out Israelis. No wonder its a mess there...

most of the populatin that is now days called refugees , are actually arabs who wilingly left their homes in fear from the israeli army.

you should hear the other side, before you judge.

hilarous:rolleyes:

hilarous:rolleyes:

on the contrary. they feared the israeli army because of the atrocities the arabs have performed against the jews, pre the 48 war. most of them were immigrants.

so as I see it: Palestinians got kicked out by Israelis who kicked out Palestinians for kicking out Israelis. No wonder its a mess there...

wrong. the palestinians fled into the neighboring arabs countries, those who swore to wipe israel.

on the contrary. they feared the israeli army because of the atrocities the arabs have performed against the jews, pre the 48 war. most of them were immigrants.

All Israelis are native to Israel since thousands of years and Palestinians are refugees who are immigrants (repeat indefinitely until established as history).

wrong. the palestinians fled into the neighboring arabs countries, those who swore to wipe israel.

well arent you being the one who is one-sided here?

All Israelis are native to Israel since thousands of years and Palestinians are refugees who are immigrants

no, thats not what is said. read before you respond sam. insults will get you know were.

well arent you being the one who is one-sided here?

im just bringing the other side of the story. the one it seems to me, you never heard of, correct me if im wrong.

wrong. the palestinians fled into the neighboring arabs countries, those who swore to wipe israel.

More "history":rolleyes:

"The Arab League hastily called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan. But these regular armies were ill equipped and lacked any central command to coordinate their efforts...[Jordan's King Abdullah] promised [the Israelis and the British] that his troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoid fighting with Jewish settlements...Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off "the overwhelming hordes' of five Arab countries. In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified."

"Israeli propaganda has largely relinquished the claim that the Palestinian exodus of 1948 was 'self-inspired'. Official circles implicitly concede that the Arab population fled as a result of Israeli action - whether directly, as in the case of Lydda and Ramleh, or indirectly, due to the panic that and similar actions (the Deir Yassin massacre) inspired in Arab population centers throughout Palestine. However, even though the historical record has been grudgingly set straight, the Israeli establishment still refused to accept moral or political responsibility for the refugee problem it- or its predecessors - actively created." Peretz Kidron, quoted in "Blaming the Victims," ed. Said and Hitchens.

"The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) monitored all Middle Eastern broadcasts throughout 1948. The records, and companion ones by a United States monitoring unit, can be seen at the British Museum. There was not a single order or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine, from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is a repeated monitored record of Arab appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put." Erskine Childers, British researcher, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

"During May [1948] ideas about how to consolidate and give permanence to the Palestinian exile began to crystallize, and the destruction of villages was immediately perceived as a primary means of achieving this aim...[Even earlier,] On 10 April, Haganah units took Abu Shusha... The village was destroyed that night... Khulda was leveled by Jewish bulldozers on 20 April... Abu Zureiq was completely demolished... Al Mansi and An Naghnaghiya, to the southeast, were also leveled. . .By mid-1949, the majority of [the 350 depopulated Arab villages] were either completely or partly in ruins and uninhabitable." Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949.

"The first UN General Assembly resolution--Number 194- affirming the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property, was passed on December 11, 1948. It has been repassed no less than twenty-eight times since that first date. Whereas the moral and political right of a person to return to his place of uninterrupted residence is acknowledged everywhere, Israel has negated the possibility of return... [and] systematically and juridically made it impossible, on any grounds whatever, for the Arab Palestinian to return, be compensated for his property, or live in Israel as a citizen equal before the law with a Jewish Israeli." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

http://www.cactus48.com/statehood.html

im just bringing the other side of the story. the one it seems to me, you never heard of, correct me if im wrong.

I heard of everything and everyone. My wish is that Middle East come to peace. thats all.

I heard of everything and everyone. My wish is that Middle East come to peace. thats all.

mine too. and as you can see i just to prevent only one side from making a stand, telling only hes side of the story.

More "history":rolleyes:

http://www.cactus48.com/statehood.html

you should have retired at your peak sam. quoting unreliable sources from the internet is something every one can do around here. something, i do not want to take part with.

you should have retired at your peak sam. quoting unreliable sources from the internet is something every one can do around here. something, i do not want to take part with.

All sources are referenced in this booklet.
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

Published by
Jews for Justice in the Middle East

The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs' inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists' intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn't matter. The Arabs' opposition to Zionism wasn't based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.

One further point: being Jewish ourselves, the position we present here is critical of Zionism but is in no way anti-Semitic. We do not believe that the Jews acted worse than any other group might have acted in their situation. The Zionists (who were a distinct minority of the Jewish people until after WWII) had an understandable desire to establish a place where Jews could be masters of their own fate, given the bleak history of Jewish oppression. Especially as the danger to European Jewry crystalized in the late 1930's and after, the actions of the Zionists were propelled by real desperation.

But so were the actions of the Arabs. The mythic "land without people for a people without land" was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919.

All sources are referenced in this booklet.
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

Published by
Jews for Justice in the Middle East

interesting. they say they're jewish, so i guess that makes them right. and what are there names do you know?

More:

http://www.cactus48.com/conclusionI.html
For Jewish Readers

As we have seen, the root cause of the Palestine-Israel conflict is clear. During the 1948 war, 750,000 Palestinians fled in terror or were actively expelled from their ancestral homeland and turned into refugees. The state of Israel then refused to allow them to return and either destroyed their villages entirely or expropriated their land, orchards, houses, businesses and personal possessions for the use of the Jewish population. This was the birth of the state of Israel.

We know it is hard to accept emotionally, but in this case the Jewish people are in the wrong.We took most of Palestine by force from the Arabs and blamed the victims for resisting their dispossession. If you run into someone's car, for whatever reason, simple justice demands that you repair it. Our moral obligation to the Palestinian people is no less clear. It is time for all Jewish people of good conscience to make whatever amends are possible to the Palestinians in order to live up to the best part of the Jewish tradition - its ethical and moral basis.

Any criticism of Israel is traditionally seen by American Jews as harmful to the Jewish people, even if the criticism is true. But "my people, right or wrong, my people" is no different than "my country, right or wrong, my country". Once we start down the slippery slope where the ends justify the means we have left behind any claim to morality. Along with millions of other American Jews unaffiliated with the major U.S. Jewish organizations, we are outraged at the Israeli government's ongoing oppression of the Palestinians and feel that it has been the ruination of the high moral standing of the Jewish people.

The Israeli government could solve the Palestine/Israel crisis tomorrow. It actually would be in the best interests of its citizens to do so because random acts of terrorism against Israelis would cease if Palestinian demands for a viable, independent state were accepted and compensation for Arab losses made.

Here in America, we Jews are thoroughly assimilated into the mainstream of society and hold positions of power and influence in every field of endeavor. We do not need to be in a defensive mood anymore. We can afford to change out attitude from "is it good the the Jews?" to "Is it good?" At the very least, American Jews need to categorically state that we cannot condone Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land, and the intentional murder and crippling of Palestinian protestors armed only with rocks, as documented in reports by the UN Security Council, the UN Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Israeli groups like B'Tselem, etc.

According to a survey commissioned by the five largest American Jewish organizations, but suppressed by them afterwards, 20% of American Jews support Palestinian demands and 35% say that Jerusalem should be shared. This, in the face of a near-total blackout of the Palestinian position in our press, is very impressive. Join this growing segment of American Jews by contacting Not In My Name, at www.nimn.org, a group that is spearheading a coalition of Jewish groups to protest the Israeli occupation.

Israel's long-term interests can best be served by supporting Israeli peace groups, like Gush Shalom (www.gush.shalom.org), not the Israeli government and its brutal repression, which just leads to endless violence. Israeli peace groups rightfully criticize their government and we should too, since they claim to act in our name. American groups like the Jewish Peace Lobby, Jewish Voice For Peace and the Middle East Children's Alliance also deserve your support. Don't compromise yout ethics in blind support of bad politics--work for a just soultion instead.

Please write for more free copies of this booklet to the address on the back page and ask your Jewish friends to consider the information presented here. For everyone's sake. Peace.

Important Note: at the end of the next section, ConclusionII, there is a list of Jewish organizations in America and Israel, and links to their websites, which are informative and interesting. We encourage to explore them with an open mind.

i found this link there:

http://www.nkusa.org/

http://www.cactus48.com/conclusionII.html

interesting. they say they're jewish, so i guess that makes them right. and what are there names do you know?

I'm sure its not impossible to find out

http://www.cactus48.com/conclusionII.html

Not in Our Name Coalition
http://www.nimn.org

Jewish Voice for Peace
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org
E-mail to get on mailing list

Gush Shalom
http://www.gush-shalom.org

Jews Against Occupation
http://www.angelcities.com/members/jato

Jewish Peace Fellowship
http://www.jewishpeacefellowship.org

Truth, Justice, and Human Rights
in the Middle East
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7891

Neturei Karta
http://www.netureikarta.org

Jews NOT Zionists
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org

Yesh Gvul, The movement for IDF men
refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories.
http://www.diak.org/Haayesh-gvul.htm

Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions
http://www.salam.org/activism/home_demolitions.html

B'Tselem (Israeli Human Rights Group)
http://www.btselem.org

Bat Shalom, Israeli Women for Peace
http://www.batshalom.org

"Occupied Territory"
http://www.occupied.org

Rabbis for Human Rights
http://www.rhr.israel.net

Oz v'Shalom - Netivot Shalom
(religious Zionist anti-Occupation)
http://www.ariga.com/ozveshalom.index.asp

Jewish Alliance Against the Occupation
http://www.opentent.org/jews.html

Association for Civil Rights in Israel
http://www.nif.org/acri

Prominent Jews writing articles in Haaretz
http://www.haaretzdaily.com

Alliance of Middle East Scientists & Physicians
http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~yoram/amesp.html

Visions for peace with justice in Israel/Palestine
http://www.vopj.org

Middle East Crisis Committee
http://www.thestruggle.org

Search for Justice and Equality in Palestine/Israel
http://www.searchforjustice.org

Tikkun Magazine
http://www.tikkun.org

More:

http://www.cactus48.com/conclusionI.html

so who are the authors?

i found this link there:

http://www.nkusa.org/

http://www.cactus48.com/conclusionII.html


Is there something wrong with orthodox jews?

I'm not familiar with them.

I'm sure its not impossible to find out



what do this link have to do with the identity of the authors of the book you brought up as evidence of history?

Is there something wrong with orthodox jews?

I'm not familiar with them.

you never heard of neturei karta? the guys who went to iran.

so who are the authors?

All material is referenced on site.

Neturei Karta (Aramaic: נטורי קרתא "Guardians of the City") is a tiny [1]group of Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) Jews who reject all forms of Zionism and actively oppose the existence of the State of Israel.

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

All material is referenced on site.

so it should be easy for you to show everyone in this forum, who are the people who wrote that book, you called evidence, and based your opinion on.

you never heard of neturei karta? the guys who went to iran.

Appears their going to Iran was not well received:

The participation of the Natorei Karta in a Holocaust denial conference held in Teheran last month, continues to draw the ire of Jews, but particularly that of the haredim who feel their credibility and image was threatened by the actions of the small anti-Zionist group.

Weiss would not comment on the protest, and told The Jerusalem Post that he has a policy of not speaking to "Zionist newspapers." The protest was one part of a larger campaign, called "Operation Screwball," by the JDO to ostracize the Natorei Karta. The JDO Web site now features photos of several members of the sect with their telephone numbers and addresses, in an attempt to encourage harassment. The group, which is not affiliated with the Jewish Defense League, is calling on synagogues and Jewish businesses in Monsey to deny entrance to or association with the group's members.

"We want them fired from their jobs and run out of Monsey," said Mordechai Levy, the national director of the JDO.

Protesters at Sunday's gathering, who came from Brooklyn, New Jersey and other parts of the New York metro area, carried signs that read "Natorei Karta U R Traitors." They were met with equally provocative signs from the Natorei Karta that said "Judaism rejects Zionism and the State of Israel." The anti-Zionist group stood outside their headquarters with a torn Israeli flag.

What is the Israeli position on this group?

so it should be easy for you to show everyone in this forum, who are the people who wrote that book, you called evidence, and based your opinion on.

What part of "referenced on site" is difficult to understand?:confused:

Appears their going to Iran was not well received:



What is the Israeli position on this group?

whats your point? your trusted site have a link to neturai karta, with the title "go open minded". the view of the jewish community on them, is really irrelevant.

What part of "referenced on site" is difficult to understand?:confused:

well that not what your site says :

Live links to websites of other Jewish organizations.
We do not necessarily concur with all the
positions taken on these sites, but you may
find them informative and interesting.


so are you incapable of telling us who wrote it?

whats your point? your trusted site have a link to neturai karta, with the title "go open minded". the view of the jewish community on them, is really irrelevant.

So are the neturai karta banned in Israel?

well that not what your site says :


Ah you did not understand what I said.

Referenced on site means the authors are given on the pages with the material


For example,

"The [Lausanne] conference officially opened on 27 April 1949. On 12 May the [UN's] Palestine Conciliation ,Committee reaped its only success when it induced the parties to sign a joint protocol on the framework for a comprehensive peace. . Israel for the first time accepted the principle of repatriation [of the Arab refugees] and the internationalization of Jerusalem. . .[but] they did so as a mere exercise in public relations aimed at strengthening Israel's international image...Walter Eytan, the head of the Israeli delegation, [stated]..'My main purpose was to begin to undermine the protocol of 12 May, which we had signed only under duress of our struggle for admission to the U.N. Refusal to sign would...have immediately been reported to the Secretary-General and the various governments.'" Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe, "The Making of the Arab-Israel Conflict, 1947-1951."

The red part is the reference.

so are you incapable of telling us who wrote it?

Its not my capabilities that are questionable here.:p

So are the neturai karta banned in Israel?

youre just deflecting the point. this is irrelevant to this discussion. no site can be called reliable when it says go to the neturei karta site, "open minded". an organization that openly calls for israel destruction. nor your inability to tell us who wrote what you called history.

youre just deflecting the point. this is irrelevant to this discussion. no site can be called reliable when it says go to the neturei karta site, "open minded". an organization that openly calls for israel destruction. nor your inability to tell us who wrote what you called history.

Your inability to comprehend is not my responsibility. Sorry.

Ah you did not understand what I said.

Referenced on site means the authors are given on the pages with the material


For example,


The red part is the reference.



Its not my capabilities that are questionable here.:p
so id did understood you the first time. so what is your problem, to tell us who are the authors are? you brought this site up, not me. dont expect me to do your work.

Your inability to comprehend is not my responsibility. Sorry.

it is your responsibility never the less to tell us who wrote it, or at least explain, why a random site you googled is reliable. dont you think?

so id did understood you the first time. so what is your problem, to tell us who are the authors are? you brought this site up, not me. dont expect me to do your work.

it is your responsibility never the less to tell us who wrote it, or at least explain, why a random site you googled is reliable. dont you think?

Here are the references:

The historical evidence, however, is overwhelming and is available in fully documented form in the books cited. Particularly useful sources are:

1. "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice" by John Quigley, professor of law at Ohio State University. Duke University Press, 1990.

2. "The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel & The Palestinians" by Noam Chomsky, professor at MIT and "arguably the most important intellectual alive" (NY Times). South End Press, 1983.

3."Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel" by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi. An honest history of Zionism by a noted Israeli scholar who teaches at Haifa University. Olive Branch Press, 1993.

4. "Bitter Harvest" by Sami Hadawi. A very complete look at the documentary evidence of the creation of the state of Israel, by a Palestinian Christian who lived through that period. Caravan Books 1979.

Here are the references:

i wonder sam why you didnt quote the whole passage:

Sources for further research on Palestine and Israel

These short quotes do not, of course, prove the assertions made here. The historical evidence, however, is overwhelming and is available in fully documented form in the books cited. Particularly useful sources are:

and as for illan pepe, im not even going in there. but here is what i found on Noam Chomsky:

In 1979, Robert Faurisson, a French literary critic and professor of literature, published two letters in Le Monde which included claims that the gas chambers used by the Nazis to exterminate the Jews did not exist [17]. The outrage caused by Faurisson's writings resulted in his conviction for defamation and subjection to a fine and prison sentence. Serge Thion, a French libertarian socialist scholar and Holocaust denier, asked Chomsky to lend his signature to a petition which supported Faurisson's right of academic freedom. Many French intellectuals considered this petition to be a legitimization of Faurisson's denial of the Holocaust, and a misrepresentation of Faurisson's credentials and intentions. Having signed the petition Chomsky wrote an essay Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression which was heavily critical of the French intellectual response. In this essay Chomsky determined that Faurisson was "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort" but felt that this was irrelevant when defending absolute freedom of speech. Faurisson's editors subsequently used this essay as a preface to Mémoire en défense, Faurisson's book intended to defend his controversial views.


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

i wonder sam why you didnt quote the whole passage:

The historical evidence, however, is overwhelming and is available in fully documented form in the books cited

And so?



and as for illan pepe, im not even going in there. but here is what i found on Noam Chomsky:



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


In this essay Chomsky determined that Faurisson was "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort" but felt that this was irrelevant when defending absolute freedom of speech.

Faurisson's editors subsequently used this essay as a preface to Mémoire en défense, Faurisson's book intended to defend his controversial views.

And so?

And so?
not even your site says its enough, to prove it as history.


And so?

this question the reliability of one of the authors this site is counting on.
since i quoted only part of the link, and you referred only to a small part from there, take your time and read the whole thing.

**like this for instance:

Chomsky's written statement that "I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust" has resulted in criticisms from Werner Cohn that he is "morally and intellectually blind" and potentially "sympathetic to holocaust denial"

not even your site says its enough, to prove it as history.




this question the reliability of one of the authors this site is counting on.
since i quoted only part of the link, and you referred only to a small part from there, take your time and read the whole thing.

But what does this have to do with this:



"The Arab League hastily called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan. But these regular armies were ill equipped and lacked any central command to coordinate their efforts...[Jordan's King Abdullah] promised [the Israelis and the British] that his troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoid fighting with Jewish settlements...Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off "the overwhelming hordes' of five Arab countries. In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified.""Our Roots Are Still Alive," by the Peoples Press Palestine Book Project.

"Israeli propaganda has largely relinquished the claim that the Palestinian exodus of 1948 was 'self-inspired'. Official circles implicitly concede that the Arab population fled as a result of Israeli action - whether directly, as in the case of Lydda and Ramleh, or indirectly, due to the panic that and similar actions (the Deir Yassin massacre) inspired in Arab population centers throughout Palestine. However, even though the historical record has been grudgingly set straight, the Israeli establishment still refused to accept moral or political responsibility for the refugee problem it- or its predecessors - actively created." Peretz Kidron, quoted in "Blaming the Victims," ed. Said and Hitchens.

"The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) monitored all Middle Eastern broadcasts throughout 1948. The records, and companion ones by a United States monitoring unit, can be seen at the British Museum. There was not a single order or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine, from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948. There is a repeated monitored record of Arab appeals, even flat orders, to the civilians of Palestine to stay put." Erskine Childers, British researcher, quoted in Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

"During May [1948] ideas about how to consolidate and give permanence to the Palestinian exile began to crystallize, and the destruction of villages was immediately perceived as a primary means of achieving this aim...[Even earlier,] On 10 April, Haganah units took Abu Shusha... The village was destroyed that night... Khulda was leveled by Jewish bulldozers on 20 April... Abu Zureiq was completely demolished... Al Mansi and An Naghnaghiya, to the southeast, were also leveled. . .By mid-1949, the majority of [the 350 depopulated Arab villages] were either completely or partly in ruins and uninhabitable." Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949.

"The first UN General Assembly resolution--Number 194- affirming the right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property, was passed on December 11, 1948. It has been repassed no less than twenty-eight times since that first date. Whereas the moral and political right of a person to return to his place of uninterrupted residence is acknowledged everywhere, Israel has negated the possibility of return... [and] systematically and juridically made it impossible, on any grounds whatever, for the Arab Palestinian to return, be compensated for his property, or live in Israel as a citizen equal before the law with a Jewish Israeli." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

http://www.cactus48.com/statehood.html

not even your site says its enough, to prove it as history.




this question the reliability of one of the authors this site is counting on.
since i quoted only part of the link, and you referred only to a small part from there, take your time and read the whole thing.

**like this for instance:

Chomsky's written statement that "I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust" has resulted in criticisms from Werner Cohn that he is "morally and intellectually blind" and potentially "sympathetic to holocaust denial"

Are you accusing Chomsky of anti-Semitism?

But what does this have to do with this:

http://www.cactus48.com/statehood.html

if this site is counting on a non credible source, its own credibility is in question, and therefor cannot be accepted as facts. someone who regards denials of history facts as freedom of speech, or statement the holocaust is a jewish plot is not antisemitic in nature, hes not credible, to me at least. but maybe your views are different.

**edit: not to mention the link to neturei karta.

Are you accusing Chomsky of anti-Semitism?

im not the one casting stones. i question only hes credibility. and that is only one example of criticism against him.

if this site is counting on a non credible source, its own credibility is in question, and therefor cannot be accepted as facts. someone who regards denials of history facts as freedom of speech, or statement the holocaust is a jewish plot is not antisemitic in nature, hes not credible, to me at least. but maybe your views are different.

So all the Jewish peace groups are not credible sources?:p

Tell me which one will you accept as credible?

So all the Jewish peace groups are not credible sources?:p

Tell me which one will you accept as credible?

i made my self very clear. being jewish has nothing to do with this. i guess, you consider jewish sources more credible cause theyre jewish, but i question him based on hes actions.

i made my self very clear. being jewish has nothing to do with this. i guess, you consider jewish sources more credible cause theyre jewish, but i question him based on hes actions.

You did not answer the question.

Which Jewish peace group do you accept as credible? Any of them?

You did not answer the question.

Which Jewish peace group do you accept as credible? Any of them?

i guess i wasnt clear. what their being jewish got anything to do with theyre credibility? i answered your question in the bold part of my post- i judge based on actions.

i guess i wasnt clear. what their being jewish got anything to do with theyre credibility? i answered your question in the bold part of my post- i judge based on actions.

So which Jewish peace group, based on their actions is credible according to you?

So which Jewish peace group, based on their actions is credible according to you?

a. why jewish?

b. none, as far as i know. those peace groups are not really for peace. i used to be a member in one of them, as a teenager-"shalom ahshav".

a. why jewish?

b. none, as far as i know. those peace groups are not really for peace. i used to be a member in one of them, as a teenager-"shalom ahshav".

a. Would you believe in a Muslim peace group?

b. Thank you. Thats all I wanted to know.

a. Would you believe in a Muslim peace group?

b. Thank you. Thats all I wanted to know.

a. your ad hominem attack is consistent. religion got nothing to do with this.

b. glad i could help. i can tell much more about "shalom ahshav" if you like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Now