UN Tries to Condemn Israel

[Sayeret]

I heard on the news yesterday that the UN tried to condemn Israel for assassinationg Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin but it was vetoed by the US. What does everyone think about this. Please don't make this into a flame war. If your going to critisize the UN or Israel list facts.

[Argyll]

Then why post such a topic?

[cbreedon]

I want to know why there is no UN condemnation of the PLO for it's use of children as shields and human bombs?

[Tane Angle]

(Pulls Argyll behind sandbag wall.)

[Dalleer]

Please don't make this into a flame war. going to

No, don't.

Don't say that, since this will turn into a flame-war sooner or later and not very many people know how to play nice here when it comes to topics like this.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I heard on the news yesterday that the UN tried to condemn Israel for assassinationg Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin but it was vetoed by the US. What does everyone think about this.
Tried but did not so its a non event and not worth the discussion until it happens.

[Flagg]

I think the UN should condemn everyone.....since we're all pretty much backstabbing b@astards...

well...except for Tane, Farmgirl, and a few others

I'm tired of debating the Israeli/Palestinian problem...because no matter what yours or my opinion is, it's not going to change a damn thing....so rather than waste any more of my time of the topic...I'll be playing catch with my dog ;)

[chauncy republicans]

I think Isreal should be "condemed" for it's assanination of the Hamas leader. If the United States were to rocket Saddam Husein the U.N would be all over our asses. Though I dont disagree with the ends i do disagree with the means. I think that figures like Yassin, that play a central role in the leadership of such organizations,(Hamas ect.) should be targeted for death or arrest. Preferably, in more covert ways. Allthough there are a lot of very different implications and scenarios that affect the outcome and even survival of on the ground operations and the operators. No facts here though, just my opinions.

[ShadowNeo]

I agree somewhat with Chauncy on the method used to kill Yassin.

With the media reporting that Israel "Blew Yassin up with a Missile while he was in his Wheelchair coming out of a mosque" it was bound to not go down too well.

[SeanAshi]

I'm tired of debating the Israeli/Palestinian problem...because no matter what yours or my opinion is, it's not going to change a damn thing....Regarding this issue there seems to be no solution that can be met. But I do not support a Palestinian state, nor do I support the right of return for the Palestinians.

[Argyll]

I'm tired of debating the Israeli/Palestinian problem...because no matter what yours or my opinion is, it's not going to change a damn thing....Regarding this issue there seems to be no solution that can be met. But I do not support a Palestinian state, nor do I support the right of return for the Palestinians.

Why not?

[Geezah]

I'm on the fence about the whole Israel thing(I know why post then) but I think something needs to give with this tit for tat killing it's never going to end. Israel needs to realize that they have the upper hand because of support from the US but again they need to compromise other wise Israel is going to be one big sand trap? :|

I'm not a big supporter of all the aid we supply Israel, America just wants to be on the side of the chosen people. But I don't support the killing of innocent women and children by suicide bombers so I guess I don't really know where I stand on this? :|

[IDFM203]

Well well well another one of these topics :roll: :D …(I thought with the yassin killing, we already discussed this to death in this Thread (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10800&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=144))

Ok I will keep this short here for believe me and Argyll can testify to this ;) , I am more then capable to go on with tons of details about the ineptitude and dishonesty and biases of the UN, so I wont get into it here, I will simply make one comment directed at one line and end of with a political cartoon :D


I think Isreal should be "condemed" for it's assanination of the Hamas leader. If the United States were to rocket Saddam Husein your nations has dropped bombs bigger then Israel ever did ever in order to get saddem in the past year so yes you arrested him but that was after a few attempts at killing him as exactly what Israel did with yassin.

And again as for why I feel Israel was correct in doing this, click on the above link and read my post.


http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?ssbinary=true&cachecontrol=never&blobtable=JPImage&blobcol=urlimage&blobwhere=1080188578815&blobkey=id&blobheader=image/gif

Shalom :D

[TALOS]

I'm tired of debating the Israeli/Palestinian problem...because no matter what yours or my opinion is, it's not going to change a damn thing....Regarding this issue there seems to be no solution that can be met. But I do not support a Palestinian state, nor do I support the right of return for the Palestinians.

Why not?
Actually, although I tend to side with Israel in general, I think the Pals should get a state of their own. I think that the Arabs as a whole should pitch in money and equipment to build them a state. Rather then giving them money for weapons which serves only to destabilize.
If the people had a HOPE for their future they wouldnt be so willing to throw away their lives, now however, we have to consider the problem of the education of hate that the Pal children recieve. Also the fact that the Arabs dont want a Pal state nor do they want peace, as they have stated from day one that they do not recognize nor will they allow an Israeli state to continue, makes for a significant roadblock.
Until the Arab nations get past that "little" problem there will never be peace.

[SeanAshi]

Until the Arab nations get past that "little" problem there will never be peace.One big problem is Jerusalem, what todo with it, its already the capital of Israel, always has been and always will be, the Palestinians and Arabs do not own the Temple Mount, and Palestinians should not have control over Hebron.

[Argyll]

Until the Arab nations get past that "little" problem there will never be peace.One big problem is Jerusalem, what todo with it, its already the capital of Israel, always has been and always will be, the Palestinians and Arabs do not own the Temple Mount, and Palestinians should not have control over Hebron.


And that's your answer?

How do you feel about Native American Indians,who were driven from their lands by white settlers,and forced into reservations controlled by the Government?

a problem that was what less than 400 years old...........but here we have a problem that stems before Christianity.........and is no nearer being solved.

It's funny how history has a way in dealing with certain circumstances.
The same native American Indians.......of whom the land belonged to in the 1st place were forced to use tactics against the white settlers,by what today's standards would be tantamount to terrorism,but because of the way the modern world thinks and acts,to other's employing similar tactics are nothing short of scum.....of which I agree with,terrorists are scum......but not every person within that sect/religion/creed behave in this way.......many just want to work,to clothe their families and to put food on the table and a roof over their heads..............are we as human beings and so called Christians right to deny them this basic right in life?
Hardly showing Christainity towards them is it?.............Love thy neighbour and all that stuff?

[TALOS]

Argyll, errors and mistakes occurred, that is the way of humans, and not just white humans. I am Metis and therefore I am disliked by both native and white man as I am considered a halfbreed. I disagree with reservations and certainly dont believe in holding one group of people down. But I would not espouse violence to change that.
All people should be treated equally and those people who teach hate must be punished by society. The Pals should have a nation as the Navajo have a nation but unlike the Navajo the Pals dont seem to want peace, they only want to eliminate Israel. They are taught hate in their schools and are not willing to compromise and accept the state of Israel.
We have to target the teachers of hate in all societies before we will have any chance of educating the children to learn reason and compromise.

[Sayeret]

Argyll said:


Then why post such a topic?

Since I want to see what everyone's opinion on the topic is without people yelling at eachother insults. I think that most of the people on this site can handle it. If Dalleer or you believe that this is going to become a flame war and it bothers you then you don't have to post anything. I just wanted to find out everyones opinion is. Even though I don't agree with what you said in your last post I'm not going to start yelling at you and insulting you because it gets us no where. Also that is why I posted that you should list facts so hopefully this won't become a flame war. The relationship between Israel and the United Nations shouldn't become a taboo that people are afraid to talk about.

[Seoulstriker]

the UN is made up of mostly anti-semites. anti-semites hate jews. jews live in israel.

israel takes out the bin-laden of hamas. UN is upset because they like what he was doing to the jews.

:(

[chauncy republicans]

the UN is made up of mostly anti-semites. anti-semites hate jews. jews live in israel.

israel takes out the bin-laden of hamas. UN is upset because they like what he was doing to the jews.

:(
An anti-semite is someone who hates Mid eastern people in general,
Muslim, Jew, or Christian.

[UkrainianAmerican]

the UN is made up of mostly anti-semites. anti-semites hate jews. jews live in israel.

israel takes out the bin-laden of hamas. UN is upset because they like what he was doing to the jews.

:(
An anti-semite is someone who hates Mid eastern people in general,
Muslim, Jew, or Christian.
an·ti-Sem·ite (nt-smt, nt-)
n.
One who discriminates against or who is hostile toward or prejudiced against Jews.

[chauncy republicans]

Was that in the dictionary? btw not trying to be confrontational. :D

[UkrainianAmerican]

Was that in the dictionary? btw not trying to be confrontational. :D
directly from www.dictionary.com

[chauncy republicans]

I was always under the impression that Anti-semite implied to all mid eastern people. Guess I was wrong.
Thank you for the clearing that one up RussianAmerican.

[UkrainianAmerican]

I was always under the impression that Anti-semite impied to all mid eastern people. Guess I was wrong.
Thank you for the clearing that one up RussianAmerican.
Linguisitcly-speaking Semite refers to a race (which includes arabs and jews), but ever since the creation of the term 'antisemetism' a couple of centuries ago, it meant precisely what dictionary.com says.

[chauncy republicans]

;)

[chauncy republicans]

I think Isreal should be "condemed" for it's assanination of the Hamas leader. If the United States were to rocket Saddam Husein your nations has dropped bombs bigger then Israel ever did ever in order to get saddem in the past year so yes you arrested him but that was after a few attempts at killing him as exactly what Israel did with yassin. I didnt event think of that, good point!

[Marmot1]

Problem is that Palestinians need a state as long as they don't have they focus on destroying israel (you know everyone need some goal in life). So to solve the problem Palestionan state must be created so they can focus on building they own state and then they will not have time nor will to destroy israel (at least most of them) As long as they do not have anything better to do they will throw stones, plant bombs, etc.

Also creation of palestinian state would kick weapon out of some extremist group hands, who now bread themselves on ppl anger. AFAIK unemployment is overhelming betwen palestinians so they have pleanty of time to act against israel. They need a state and jobs so they would be too bussy to act against israel... and demanding from them to stop doing terrorist act's and suppoting terrorist organisation is idiotic as hell. Demanding to put your weapon aside and then we will thing about your demand - no way anyone agree...

[UoUo]

Problem is that Palestinians need a state as long as they don't have they focus on destroying israel (you know everyone need some goal in life). So to solve the problem Palestionan state must be created so they can focus on building they own state and then they will not have time nor will to destroy israel (at least most of them) As long as they do not have anything better to do they will throw stones, plant bombs, etc.

Also creation of palestinian state would kick weapon out of some extremist group hands, who now bread themselves on ppl anger. AFAIK unemployment is overhelming betwen palestinians so they have pleanty of time to act against israel. They need a state and jobs so they would be too bussy to act against israel... and demanding from them to stop doing terrorist act's and suppoting terrorist organisation is idiotic as hell. Demanding to put your weapon aside and then we will thing about your demand - no way anyone agree...

All good and nice....so why the **** they refuse to take Barak offers in 1999 ??????????????? :bash: :bash: :bash:

[Argyll]

Argyll said:


Then why post such a topic?

Since I want to see what everyone's opinion on the topic is without people yelling at eachother insults. I think that most of the people on this site can handle it. If Dalleer or you believe that this is going to become a flame war and it bothers you then you don't have to post anything. I just wanted to find out everyones opinion is. Even though I don't agree with what you said in your last post I'm not going to start yelling at you and insulting you because it gets us no where. Also that is why I posted that you should list facts so hopefully this won't become a flame war. The relationship between Israel and the United Nations shouldn't become a taboo that people are afraid to talk about.

Which post would that be?
How mant times has this Middle east V's Israel V's the UN topics started off and ends up with the Israeli's branding the Europeans Anti semetic?
then the Europeans,especially some Scandinavians start mud slinging....I've never seen a thread pertaining to Israel V's Palestinian remain civil yet in all my time here,without someone being labelled Anti semetic.
Semites also include Arabs by the way.....look up the definition on the same dictionary RA

1.A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
2.A Jew.
3.Bible. A descendant of Shem.
so being an Anti semite is also being Anti Arab..........but the general usage of the term is Anti Jewish......which is technically incorrect,so for those who like to use this term Anti semite just remember who else within that region are classed as Semites ;)

Sayaret.....even the USA has stated that Palestinians need to have their own State,it's part of the Road map for Peace.

The trouble here is you wanted to know what peoples opinions were but when you jear it you start to disagree because you don't like it,like I said It's only a matter of time before this goes down the same road......it's called predictability!!

[mocking_loudly_died]

Send the middle east to the moon, adopt electric cars, Nuke India / Pakistan, stop buying inferior Chinese products, sail Taiwan to USA, sell USA to Europe, shoot every one in the Balkans, sink Africa and hail Mocking.

My solution to a bunch of collective issues.
If you need me, I'll be singing at a AH HA tribute night.

[Argyll]

Argyll said:


Then why post such a topic?

Since I want to see what everyone's opinion on the topic is without people yelling at eachother insults. I think that most of the people on this site can handle it. If Dalleer or you believe that this is going to become a flame war and it bothers you then you don't have to post anything. I just wanted to find out everyones opinion is. Even though I don't agree with what you said in your last post I'm not going to start yelling at you and insulting you because it gets us no where. Also that is why I posted that you should list facts so hopefully this won't become a flame war. The relationship between Israel and the United Nations shouldn't become a taboo that people are afraid to talk about.


I've yet to see any "facts" offered by yourself either,I could quite easily post all the UN resoloutions that Israel has against her,and the continuing breaking of these........these are facts,but as I've been through all this with IDFM203 privately,and I'm fully aware that 99% of these were submitted by Arab Nations and that the big boys abstained from voting,or they vetoed them,despite this,and irrespective of whatever you feel about it the UN seen fit to pass these resoloutions................these are facts,but I can guarantee you it will be like pouring oil onto a fire!!

[Marmot1]

Problem is that Palestinians need a state as long as they don't have they focus on destroying israel (you know everyone need some goal in life). So to solve the problem Palestionan state must be created so they can focus on building they own state and then they will not have time nor will to destroy israel (at least most of them) As long as they do not have anything better to do they will throw stones, plant bombs, etc.

Also creation of palestinian state would kick weapon out of some extremist group hands, who now bread themselves on ppl anger. AFAIK unemployment is overhelming betwen palestinians so they have pleanty of time to act against israel. They need a state and jobs so they would be too bussy to act against israel... and demanding from them to stop doing terrorist act's and suppoting terrorist organisation is idiotic as hell. Demanding to put your weapon aside and then we will thing about your demand - no way anyone agree...

All good and nice....so why the f*** they refuse to take Barak offers in 1999 ??????????????? :bash: :bash: :bash:
Maybe it was crapy...? ;)

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

If you need me, I'll be singing at a AH HA tribute night.
AH HA rock, AH HA, Xymox or Depeche Mode get a Goth chick back to your place and put one of these bands on hey presto knickers off and bodice cast asunder (works very well on Euro Goth chicks in their late 20's). :)

[UoUo]

Problem is that Palestinians need a state as long as they don't have they focus on destroying israel (you know everyone need some goal in life). So to solve the problem Palestionan state must be created so they can focus on building they own state and then they will not have time nor will to destroy israel (at least most of them) As long as they do not have anything better to do they will throw stones, plant bombs, etc.

Also creation of palestinian state would kick weapon out of some extremist group hands, who now bread themselves on ppl anger. AFAIK unemployment is overhelming betwen palestinians so they have pleanty of time to act against israel. They need a state and jobs so they would be too bussy to act against israel... and demanding from them to stop doing terrorist act's and suppoting terrorist organisation is idiotic as hell. Demanding to put your weapon aside and then we will thing about your demand - no way anyone agree...

All good and nice....so why the f*** they refuse to take Barak offers in 1999 ??????????????? :bash: :bash: :bash:
Maybe it was crapy...? ;)

67' borders including east jeruslem. they can't get anything better.

[Elmo]

"List facts"

What do you mean with this?

As far as I know every time someone criticizes Israel, pro-Israelis start referring to their facts and the critiques' lack of competence. These facts are usually taken out of context and usually these facts underline Israel's right to protect themselves, which of course, is one of the most flammable subjects of discussion.

One thing that could be considered a fact is that people die in a cycle violence and the whole conflict is extremely difficult to solve.

[UoUo]

"List facts"

What do you mean with this?

As far as I know every time someone criticizes Israel, pro-Israelis start referring to their facts and the critiques' lack of competence. These facts are usually taken out of context and usually these facts underline Israel's right to protect themselves, which of course, is one of the most flammable subjects of discussion.

One thing that could be considered a fact is that people die in a cycle violence and the whole conflict is extremely difficult to solve.

There no such thing cycle of violence. there are palstinain that try to kill Jews...and the IDf always try to stop them....the paltinian don't have to Wait for resen to attack jews they doing that all the time.

[UkrainianAmerican]

You are wrong, Argyll :P .
As I explained to chauncy republicans, semite does indeed technically refer to all those ethnicities you mentioned. HOWEVER, the term anti-semite refers exclusivly to Jews.

[Argyll]

You are wrong, Argyll :P .
As I explained to chauncy republicans, semite does indeed technically refer to all those ethnicities you mentioned. HOWEVER, the term anti-semite refers exclusivly to Jews.

Nope If you read what I said ,it is in fact correct! ;) .......the term Anti Semite is used almost exclusively against Jews,which I stated was technically incorrect.........I used dictionary .com as well.

Semite= being the collective name for a group of people within a particular Region
Anti =being against

Anti semite Against a group of people within a particular Region ;)

Which is technically correct ..........Nes Pas?

[littlefrench]

American and Israeli always think that the French are anti semitic, my opinion about this question
-Hamas boss had merited the missiles, you have done what you had to do

[Haiw]

Which is technically correct ..........Nes Pas?
Don't tell me that 'Nes Pas' is supposed to be French....

[Argyll]

I was never a linguist mate!!

[Haiw]

Yeah...it shows. :P

[Argyll]

;) .............................or a diplomat

[Haiw]

Is that a threat? p-)

[chauncy republicans]

If you need me, I'll be singing at a AH HA tribute night.
AH HA rock, AH HA, Xymox or Depeche Mode get a Goth chick back to your place and put one of these bands on hey presto knickers off and bodice cast asunder (works very well on Euro Goth chicks in their late 20's). :)
;) I see we have a profesional

[aktarian]

67' borders including east jeruslem. they can't get anything better.

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

1967 borders my arse. And want to hear better offer? How about control of natural resources in land they will "get"? How about lant they "got" not being intersected by Israeli roads? How about return of refugees, soemthing Israel agreed to it will do? Nah, that's in fact worse than what they were offered. :roll:

removes everything flamable and puts on asbestos suit.

[UkrainianAmerican]

ARGHHH! SO STUBBORN!
The ROOTS of the word by themselves mean what you said, howerver the PARTIUCULAR word "anti-semite" (not semite and not anti by themselve) means preceisely anti-jewish.
:-*$

[/McH\]

67' borders including east jeruslem. they can't get anything better.

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

1967 borders my arse. And want to hear better offer? How about control of natural resources in land they will "get"? How about lant they "got" not being intersected by Israeli roads? How about return of refugees, soemthing Israel agreed to it will do? Nah, that's in fact worse than what they were offered. :roll:

removes everything flamable and puts on asbestos suit.

The Offer Included most of the Territories

Do you know what the Return of the refugees even means?? :bash:

Its means all the "Palastinians" From Lebanon, Jordan etc will come back to city such as Jaffa, which is INSIDE israel Borders, They Can only dream, They will never get it

[chauncy republicans]

I can post economic facts from the CIA's "world fact book" for Isreal, West Bank, and Gaza, If any of you would like.

[UoUo]

67' borders including east jeruslem. they can't get anything better.

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

1967 borders my arse. And want to hear better offer? How about control of natural resources in land they will "get"? How about lant they "got" not being intersected by Israeli roads? How about return of refugees, soemthing Israel agreed to it will do? Nah, that's in fact worse than what they were offered. :roll:

removes everything flamable and puts on asbestos suit.

natural resources? the offered includs that' no dout.

return of refugees? you can forget about that. never ever will happen.

[Haiw]

ARGHHH! SO STUBBORN!
The ROOTS of the word by themselves mean what you said, howerver the PARTIUCULAR word "anti-semite" (not semite and not anti by themselve) means preceisely anti-jewish.
:-*$
Actually it's not, that's just the way it's normally (mis)used.

[UkrainianAmerican]

ARGHHH! SO STUBBORN!
The ROOTS of the word by themselves mean what you said, howerver the PARTIUCULAR word "anti-semite" (not semite and not anti by themselve) means preceisely anti-jewish.
:-*$
Actually it's not, that's just the way it's normally (mis)used.
Ok, heres Encarta:
an·ti-Sem·i·tism

noun

behavior discriminating against Jewish people: policies, views, or actions that harm or discriminate against Jewish people

Point is, you don't know what you are talking about, you just think you know, but you don't. :) :P

[Haiw]

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/semites.htm
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semite
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/summanti.html
Just admit you're wrong so we can get on with our lives...geez.

[aktarian]

natural resources? the offered includs that' no dout.


Yes, it does. To be used by Israelis not Palestinians.



return of refugees? you can forget about that. never ever will happen.

And there will never be peace.

[UkrainianAmerican]

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/semites.htm
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semite
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/summanti.html
Just admit you're wrong so we can get on with our lives...geez.
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
I am not talking about Semite!!!!!!!!!!!
I am talking about antisemite!!!!!!!!!!!!
And your last site is not credible.
gee, how slow are you?
;)

[Argyll]

I told you this thread was doomed from the start,as soon as people start to make their opinions known some of the Israeli's start to cry foul.....and so it all begins........
Russian American rofl ........you obviously do not understand the word "technically"........have a look at the last link Haiw posted ;)

[UoUo]

So it will never be peace...

Ok.


1 thing is for sure, you can forget about the right of return.

[UkrainianAmerican]

I told you this thread was doomed from the start,as soon as people start to make their opinions known some of the Israeli's start to cry foul.....and so it all begins........
Russian American rofl ........you obviously do not understand the word "technically"........have a look at the last link Haiw posted ;)
I know more english then some barbarous Scot. :lol:

[Argyll]

I told you this thread was doomed from the start,as soon as people start to make their opinions known some of the Israeli's start to cry foul.....and so it all begins........
Russian American rofl ........you obviously do not understand the word "technically"........have a look at the last link Haiw posted ;)
I know more english then some barabarous Scot. :lol:


rofl .........barbarious is that taken from Barbican?....... ;)

[UkrainianAmerican]

I told you this thread was doomed from the start,as soon as people start to make their opinions known some of the Israeli's start to cry foul.....and so it all begins........
Russian American rofl ........you obviously do not understand the word "technically"........have a look at the last link Haiw posted ;)
I know more english then some barabarous Scot. :lol:


rofl .........barbarious is that taken from Barbican?....... ;)
no, barbarian

[Argyll]

I told you this thread was doomed from the start,as soon as people start to make their opinions known some of the Israeli's start to cry foul.....and so it all begins........
Russian American rofl ........you obviously do not understand the word "technically"........have a look at the last link Haiw posted ;)
I know more english then some barabarous Scot. :lol:


rofl .........barbarious is that taken from Barbican?....... ;)
no, barbarian

A person from Barbaria? rofl

[UkrainianAmerican]

bar·ba·rous ( P ) ****unciation Key (b䲼IMG ALT="" SRC="http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gif" height="22" width="4" ALIGN="BOTTOM">br-s)
adj.
Primitive in culture and customs; uncivilized.
Lacking refinement or culture; coarse.
Characterized by savagery; very cruel. See Synonyms at cruel.
Marked by the use or occurrence of barbarisms in spoken or written language

[Argyll]

rofl ................just yankin yer chain buddy...I'm off out on the piss tonight,have a good one mate

[IDFM203]

I want to start that my response to you here is not exactly directed at you but rather I used it to make general points to others so when I say you I mean you in a generic way as in all that hold that view.




I've yet to see any "facts" offered by yourself either,I could quite easily post all the UN resoloutions that Israel has against her,and the continuing breaking of these........these are facts,but as I've been through all this with IDFM203 privately,and I'm fully aware that 99% of these were submitted by Arab Nations and that the big boys abstained from voting,or they vetoed them,despite this,and irrespective of whatever you feel about it the UN seen fit to pass these resoloutions................these are facts,! yes those are facts and what’s your point?

like I have said to you before (and I will just skim over it without yet getting into greater detail), yes it is a fact that Israel has the most resolutions by far against her then any other nation in the world, now if you are others want to believe that the UN was right in making Israel the most evil nation in the world as can be interrupted by its position at top of the resolutions then you can, or you can be honest about it and recognize that most of those resolutions are writing by Israelis enemies such as the Arab and soviet blocks, or you can recognize that the other nations that voted with them have obvious interests in that region with those nations that are in direct war with Israel, or you can also recognize that with regards to the Israel/Palestinian conflict, there isn’t a single resolution passed or written against any single Arab state or Arab terrorist organization which I guess in the UN eyes they are all angles, wheras in my opinion it further proves the UN partiality to one side at the huge expense to the other.

So yes there are a lot of FACTS, though I can only hope that you recognize ALL of them when talking about the UN and Israel.

To me it shows the UN dishonesty and gross negative bias against the Jewish state at the expense of a lot of other nations that are far more deserving of the “special” treatment that the UN has given to Israel.




As for the return of refugees, yeah that’s never going to happen for that is code for the end of Israel...its that obvious, that it doesn’t warrant explanation.

As for peace ever happening, well I too am pessimistic for I don’t see the Arabs any time soon (or ever in the past) for the most part really and truthfully accepting a Jewish state in what they consider to be Muslim ONLY land no matter where the borders were.


On the word anti Semitism...yeah ok you guys can argue semantics all you want I will make it simple, the UN is anti Israel/Jewish...there go do more dictionary work on what anti Israel/Jewish is if its still not clear.

Lastly


I told you this thread was doomed from the start,as soon as people start to make their opinions known some of the Israeli's start to cry foul.....and so it all begins........
typical weak tactic :roll: ....(and this my friend is indeed directed at you p-) )

Expect for one individual (RussianAmerican) and another individuals arguments over semantics, where have Israelis started to cry foul????....oh of course we are entitled to respond to opinions, that is normal per debate.

People from opposing views are giving their opinions and some Israelis are responding to it.......but of course all you choose to see is Israelis "crying foul" when no such thing has occurred or at least its not confined only to Israelis!!


Come on argyl I expect better from you ;)

Shalom :D

[aktarian]

So it will never be peace...

Ok.


1 thing is for sure, you can forget about the right of return.

And you can forget about ever living in peace.

[IDFM203]

So it will never be peace...

Ok.


1 thing is for sure, you can forget about the right of return.

And you can forget about ever living in peace.yes we realize that a lot or most in Arab world will never truly and honestly a Jewish state in any borders in what they consider to be Muslim ONLY land.

Right of return is fancy "western" speak for a means to that goal.

Sad reality indeed :(

BTW welcome back p-)

Shalom :D

[Argyll]

I want to start that my response to you here is not exactly directed at you but rather I used it to make general points to others so when I say you I mean you in a generic way as in all that hold that view.




I've yet to see any "facts" offered by yourself either,I could quite easily post all the UN resoloutions that Israel has against her,and the continuing breaking of these........these are facts,but as I've been through all this with IDFM203 privately,and I'm fully aware that 99% of these were submitted by Arab Nations and that the big boys abstained from voting,or they vetoed them,despite this,and irrespective of whatever you feel about it the UN seen fit to pass these resoloutions................these are facts,! yes those are facts and what’s your point?

ask for facts you get em.....but as you can read I said I could do this,but I did not ;)

like I have said to you before (and I will just skim over it without yet getting into greater detail), yes it is a fact that Israel has the most resolutions by far against her then any other nation in the world, now if you are others want to believe that the UN was right in making Israel the most evil nation in the world as can be interrupted by its position at top of the resolutions then you can, or you can be honest about it and recognize that most of those resolutions are writing by Israelis enemies such as the Arab and soviet blocks, or you can recognize that the other nations that voted with them have obvious interests in that region with those nations that are in direct war with Israel, or you can also recognize that with regards to the Israel/Palestinian conflict, there isn’t a single resolution passed or written against any single Arab state or Arab terrorist organization which I guess in the UN eyes they are all angles, wheras in my opinion it further proves the UN partiality to one side at the huge expense to the other.

So yes there are a lot of FACTS, though I can only hope that you recognize ALL of them when talking about the UN and Israel.

To me it shows the UN dishonesty and gross negative bias against the Jewish state at the expense of a lot of other nations that are far more deserving of the “special” treatment that the UN has given to Israel.


This view will never change and neither will these debates




As for the return of refugees, yeah that’s never going to happen for that is code for the end of Israel...its that obvious, that it doesn’t warrant explanation.

As for peace ever happening, well I too am pessimistic for I don’t see the Arabs any time soon (or ever in the past) for the most part really and truthfully accepting a Jewish state in what they consider to be Muslim ONLY land no matter where the borders were.

I agree........the roads ahead are littered with obstacles


On the word anti Semitism...yeah ok you guys can argue semantics all you want I will make it simple, the UN is anti Israel/Jewish...there go do more dictionary work on what anti Israel/Jewish is if its still not clear.

The United States is in the UN as well,do you include them in that sentance

Lastly


I told you this thread was doomed from the start,as soon as people start to make their opinions known some of the Israeli's start to cry foul.....and so it all begins........
typical weak tactic :roll: ....(and this my friend is indeed directed at you p-) )


And it's been proven so far to be the truth has it not?

Expect for one individual (RussianAmerican) and another individuals arguments over semantics, where have Israelis started to cry foul????....oh of course we are entitled to respond to opinions, that is normal per debate.

People from opposing views are giving their opinions and some Israelis are responding to it.......but of course all you choose to see is Israelis "crying foul" when no such thing has occurred or at least its not confined only to Israelis!!

Crying foul is just a figure of speach


Come on argyl I expect better from you ;)

Why? ;)

Shalom :D

Deja vu here......... ;)

[aktarian]

yes we realize that a lot or most in Arab world will never truly and honestly a Jewish state in any borders in what they consider to be Muslim ONLY land.

Right of return is fancy "western" speak for a means to that goal.

Sad reality indeed :(

BTW welcome back p-)

Shalom :D

Right of return is "western" speak for Israel to live up to obligations it agreed to.

But yes, it's sad that country based on ethnic cleansing gets away with being called democracy.

And I didn't go anywhere, I just didn't post. ;)

[TALOS]

yes we realize that a lot or most in Arab world will never truly and honestly a Jewish state in any borders in what they consider to be Muslim ONLY land.

Right of return is fancy "western" speak for a means to that goal.

Sad reality indeed :(

BTW welcome back p-)

Shalom :D

Right of return is "western" speak for Israel to live up to obligations it agreed to.

But yes, it's sad that country based on ethnic cleansing gets away with being called democracy.

And I didn't go anywhere, I just didn't post. ;)
Give me a break, if the Jews wanted to ethnicly clean the area it would take 15 minutes. They have repeatedly agreed to negotiate and the Arabs have done their best to make the demands absolutely unacceptable so that they can continue the fight. Stop with the rhetoric and look at what really happens, they could have a state if they wanted it but they obviously dont or they wouldnt support the terrorists. So they have some Israeli roads through some areas, so what, would that stop their ability to do business and live their lives? NO, they just dont want to accept Israel being there and they wont be happy until they eliminate her. THEY have stated this time and again, it's not the Jews sayin it, it's not me sayin it, it's the Arab states sayin it.

[S'13]

Right of return is "western" speak for Israel to live up to obligations it agreed to.

Please would you be so kind as to tell us when Israel made an "obligation" to destroy itself as a Jewish state?


But yes, it's sad that country based on ethnic cleansing gets away with being called democracy.

Strange that you think this since there are over one million Arabs living in Israel and have Israeli citizenship and have the same rights as any Jewish citizen.

[IDFM203]

Damn you always go first for the red…..next time go for blue, id like to have red at least once ;)




This view will never change and neither will these debates

perhaps, though I can guarantee you that a lot of people never really heard the Israeli POV on this…yes it makes no difference (for reasons that I wont get into here) but it’s a lot better then constantly parroting Israel breaks resolutions as the sum total of any knowledge of the UN/Israel relationship….all I can do is try to clear up a few things.


As for the return of refugees, yeah that’s never going to happen for that is code for the end of Israel...its that obvious, that it doesn’t warrant explanation.

As for peace ever happening, well I too am pessimistic for I don’t see the Arabs any time soon (or ever in the past) for the most part really and truthfully accepting a Jewish state in what they consider to be Muslim ONLY land no matter where the borders were.

I agree........the roads ahead are littered with obstacles
Obstacles that seem too big, which as a result have “condemned” Israel to live in perpetual state of readiness for the foreseeable future…..sad indeed


On the word anti Semitism...yeah ok you guys can argue semantics all you want I will make it simple, the UN is anti Israel/Jewish...there go do more dictionary work on what anti Israel/Jewish is if its still not clear.

The United States is in the UN as well,do you include them in that sentance
ahh you love the semantics ;) ……ok most of the UN or a lot and not ALL

Lastly


I told you this thread was doomed from the start,as soon as people start to make their opinions known some of the Israeli's start to cry foul.....and so it all begins........
typical weak tactic :roll: ....(and this my friend is indeed directed at you p-) )


And it's been proven so far to be the truth has it not?
no its been proven that people argue with Israelis, Israelis argue with others, others chime in with their false and flammatory one liners yada yada…but what’s fact is that crying foul isn’t confined ONLY to Israelis if one is to mention that nor for that matter have I really seen Israeli cry foul at all

Expect for one individual (RussianAmerican) and another individuals arguments over semantics, where have Israelis started to cry foul????....oh of course we are entitled to respond to opinions, that is normal per debate.

People from opposing views are giving their opinions and some Israelis are responding to it.......but of course all you choose to see is Israelis "crying foul" when no such thing has occurred or at least its not confined only to Israelis!!

Crying foul is just a figure of speach
yes I get it……I believe my response was appropriate to that….but as usual we will agree to disagree



Come on argyl I expect better from you ;)

Why? ;)
ok I would like to expect better from a fellow soldier…..how’s that ;) :D


Shalom :D

Deja vu here......... ;)[/quote]




yes we realize that a lot or most in Arab world will never truly and honestly a Jewish state in any borders in what they consider to be Muslim ONLY land.

Right of return is fancy "western" speak for a means to that goal.

Sad reality indeed :(

BTW welcome back p-)

Shalom :D

Right of return is "western" speak for Israel to live up to obligations it agreed to. when did we collectively agree to voluntarily commit suicide????

Right of return is just that!!




But yes, it's sad that country based on ethnic cleansing gets away with being called democracy. yes its sad that you from some distant place can label a nation that has fought five defensive wars to survive and was established offcialy after the Arabs rejected to live in co existence with it and then invaded to kill every Jew like the Germans had tried, and after all that Israel accepted thousands and thousands of Arabs and offered anyone that chooses to stay automatic citizenship to where now there are over 1 million or 20 percent of the Israeli population to be Israeli/arab citizenship. yes its sad for you to then negate all that with your lies in the way you relish in your distorting way of factual history.

Yes Israel is a democracy for all of its citizens, including its Israeli/arab ones.



And I didn't go anywhere, I just didn't post. ;) well don’t worry, there have been others that have carried on with your same type of chumsky, benny morris etc… willful revisionist history…so you might not have posted but your type of postings have been very prevalent ;)

Shalom :D

____________________________________

"If the Palestinians/Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Israelis put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel"!! (Or to put it more bluntly..” if the military capabilities of Israel and the palestinians/Arabs were reversed, all Israelis would be killed in a matter of 24 hours or less”)

“Peace can only come when the Arabs learn to love their own children more then they hate ours” (http://www.israel-wat.com/pics1_eng.htm#a2)

[Argyll]

Red's my fave colour mate ;)
I'm off out take care buddy Shalom to one and all

[aktarian]

Please would you be so kind as to tell us when Israel made an "obligation" to destroy itself as a Jewish state?

When it agreed to UHGA resolution 194.

Of course, if Israel agreed to it without itention of honoring that than it's no different than certain European country in mind 20. century which negotiated in similar manner.

[S'13]

The Wrong Right
International law and the Palestinian 'right of return'
By Joel Singer

Following the Palestinian rejection of Clinton’s peace plan early in January, 2001, the Palestinian leadership and some of their supporters have alleged that the only way to resolve the Palestinian refugee problem pursuant to international law is by allowing the refugees to exercise their purported "right of return" to Israel. This is a distorted, one-sided picture that is fundamentally flawed both legally and factually. International law is not on the Palestinians’ side.

The Palestinian refugee problem is rooted in the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli War. In 1947, realising that the Jewish and Arab communities of Palestine could not live together in one state, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 181(II), which recommended partitioning Palestine into two states - one Jewish and one Arab. While the Jews accepted this plan, the Arabs rejected it, claiming that all of Palestine belonged to them.

When Israel declared its independence in 1948, all Arab states attacked it in an attempt to prevent its creation. In the wake of this war, hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees fled from Arab countries to Israel, and, at about the same time, between 600,000 and 750,000 Palestinians fled to Arab states from the portion of Palestine that is now Israel.

This population exchange mirrored far larger population movements following the end of World War II, which involved millions of Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan, as well as Poles, Germans and other nationalities in Central and East Europe. These population exchanges were resolved through the integration of all refugees into the host states. While Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, the Arab states refused to allow such resettlement and integration of their Palestinian brethren, preferring instead to exploit the Palestinian refugees to serve their own political agendas.

Palestinians often refer to the U.N. General Assembly’s 1948 Resolution 194 (III), which called for permitting refugees to return to their "homes," as legal support for an alleged "right of return" to the Jewish state. Contrary to this assertion, however, Resolution 194 (III), like all other U.N. General Assembly resolutions, is nonbinding and not part of international law. Moreover, it was specifically rejected not only by Israel but also by all Arab states, which voted against it (because they found it insufficiently anti-Israeli).

Additionally, Resolution 194 (III) emphasised that refugees should be permitted back only if they wished to "live at peace with their neighbours." In fact, the Palestinian insistence on a "right of return" to the Jewish state has always been intertwined with the rejection of Palestine’s partition into two states and the continued Palestinian aspiration to destroy Israel. Thus, the infamous PLO’s Palestinian Covenant of 1968, which adopted the destruction of the State of Israel and the liquidation of the "Zionist presence" in Palestine as its main goals, stated in its Article 9:

"Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it."

This fundamental point should be understood clearly and without illusion: When supporters of the Palestinians speak of implementing their "right of return" to Israel, they are not speaking of peaceful accommodation with Israel; rather, they are using a well-understood code phrase for the destruction of Israel.

Indeed, the several hundred thousand Palestinian refugees who actually left the area that is now Israel have multiplied into more than 3.5 million people, most of whom are not refugees, but second- and third-generation descendants of the original refugees. The fact is that there are currently 23 Arab states and only one Jewish state, which now consists of 5 million Jews and 1 million Israeli Arabs.

If Israel opened its gates to an additional 3.5 million Palestinians, who account for more than half of the Palestinian people, it would quickly disappear and be transformed into the 24th Arab state.


During the decades that followed the adoption of the Covenant, the Palestinians continued to insist that any solution of the Palestinian problem must involve the destruction of Israel, validating former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban’s observation that the "Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity." In 1993, however, the Palestine Liberation Organisation, acting as the representative of the Palestinian people, agreed in Oslo, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian Mutual Recognition Agreement, to provide several commitments to Israel.

They include:

* A PLO recognition of "the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."

* A PLO acceptance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 and its companion resolution 338.

* A PLO undertaking to annul the Palestinian Covenant’s provisions quoted above, together with all other similar provisions calling for Israel’s destruction.

Accordingly, a continued Palestinian insistence on a "right of return" to Israel, apart from being built on originally questionable legal foundations, also is inconsistent with these very fundamental premises of the Oslo Agreements. First, the PLO agreed to relinquish its assertion that the Palestinians have the exclusive right to the historic Palestine and agreed to divide Palestine into two states - one Jewish and one Palestinian. For the Palestinians to now revive the demand that more than half of the Palestinian people have the right to immigrate to the Jewish state repudiates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Oslo Agreements.

Second, U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, which the PLO accepted, are the only U.N. resolutions referenced in the Oslo Agreements. As such, these resolutions - but not U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) - are the single existing, agreed-upon basis for the Israeli-Palestinian permanent status negotiations (which cover, among other issues, the refugee problem). U.N. Resolution 242 affirms the necessity for "achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem," but, importantly, does not mention a "right of return" or any other specific solution as the mandated or preferred way to settle that problem.

Third, in 1998, after years of delays, and in the presence of the president of the United States, the PLO finally amended the Palestinian Covenant and formally annulled its articulated goal of destroying Israel through armed struggle and the implementation of a "right of return" to the Jewish state. A revived demand to return to Israel certainly casts doubt on the veracity of the PLO’s annulment of the Palestinian Covenant.

Alternatively, Palestinians sometimes assert that a Palestinian "right of return" exists independently of U.N. resolutions, pointing to a series of human rights conventions, such as the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 12(4), which states: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter into his own country." The fundamental flaw of this argument is that, after Israel and the PLO agreed to partition Palestine into two states - one Jewish and one Palestinian - the Palestinians cannot continue to argue that the Jewish state is the Palestinians’ "own country" and that they therefore are entitled to return to it.

It is doubtful whether that aspect of the Oslo Agreements has been effectively communicated to the Palestinian people and really accepted by all of its leadership. Regrettably, the evidence strongly indicates that this illusion of seeking to destroy Israel in stages, culminating in its elimination by flooding it with millions of Palestinians, remains a goal of large segments of the Palestinian people.


At this critical time in the evolving relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, it is important that everyone understand the commitments and tradeoffs undertaken by the two sides in Oslo. There is one viable solution to the Palestinian refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state approach of the Oslo Agreements, provides a just resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem and does so without destroying the Jewish state.

This is a plan by which Palestinian refugees who wish to resettle in Palestine would do so in the Palestinian state to be created side-by-side with the Jewish state. This plan would require a major international financial effort, in which Israel will participate, to help Palestinian refugees settle permanently either in the Palestinian state or in the countries in which they currently reside, as well as to support such host countries in their rehabilitation efforts.

Most Israelis have already accepted the necessity of making far-reaching concessions to conclude an agreement with the Palestinians. When the Palestinians also come to terms with this necessity by finally accepting the commitments undertaken by the PLO on their behalf, and especially by abandoning their dream of destroying the Jewish state by having it overrun by millions of Palestinians, the Palestinian-Israeli dispute can be resolved.





Joel Singer is a former legal adviser to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as a chief negotiator of the Oslo Agreements for the Rabin-Peres government, he drafted the Israel-PLO Mutual Recognition Agreement. Reprinted from the American Bar Association Journal (Jan. 2001) by permission.

[UoUo]

Aktarian where are you from?

And why are you not here helping your brothers in "palstin".

[aktarian]

Palestinians often refer to the U.N. General Assembly’s 1948 Resolution 194 (III), which called for permitting refugees to return to their "homes," as legal support for an alleged "right of return" to the Jewish state. Contrary to this assertion, however, Resolution 194 (III), like all other U.N. General Assembly resolutions, is nonbinding and not part of international law. Moreover, it was specifically rejected not only by Israel but also by all Arab states, which voted against it (because they found it insufficiently anti-Israeli).


/.../Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11. December and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the ad hoc Political Comitee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions/.../

http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/044/44/IMG/NR004444.pdf?OpenElement

Israel was admited into UN under condition it accepts res 194. ISrael is emmber of UN. Res 194 is ignored.

When Iraq ignored UN resolutions it got invaded....

[S'13]

Aktarian, if the UN decided on a resolution which stated that we should drown ourselves in the Mediterranean Sea, you think we would follow it? :cantbeli:
For us resolution 194 is no different.

*Looks out of window*

Strange, I don't see any European military forces coming up the street, according to you they should have been here ages ago... ;)

[gilgoul]

the UN is made up of mostly anti-semites. anti-semites hate jews. jews live in israel.

israel takes out the bin-laden of hamas. UN is upset because they like what he was doing to the jews.

:(
An anti-semite is someone who hates Mid eastern people in general,
Muslim, Jew, or Christian.

"antisemite : A person hostile toward jews "

American heritage dictionary ISBN 44000207095

:cantbeli:

[S'13]

That's a nice Avatar you have aktarian. However most chances are that a polar bear and a penguin will only encounter each other in a zoo. ;)

[aktarian]

Aktarian, if the UN decided on a resolution which stated that we should drown ourselves in the Mediterranean Sea, you think we would follow it? :cantbeli:
For us resolution 194 is no different.

Then why did Israel agree to it by accepting res 273?




Strange, I don't see any European military forces coming up the street, according to you they should have been here ages ago... ;)

Because they know that US will protect Israel no amtter what it does.



That's a nice Avatar you have aktarian. However most chances are that a polar bear and a penguin will only encounter each other in a zoo. ;)

Or with help of somebody who knows how to use Photoshop. :D

[S'13]

Then why did Israel agree to it by accepting res 273?

Never heard of it, could you explain.


Because they know that US will protect Israel no amtter what it does.

I'm not sure the European nations would have attacked Israel even without the U.S support of Israel.

[UkrainianAmerican]

the UN is made up of mostly anti-semites. anti-semites hate jews. jews live in israel.

israel takes out the bin-laden of hamas. UN is upset because they like what he was doing to the jews.

:(
An anti-semite is someone who hates Mid eastern people in general,
Muslim, Jew, or Christian.

"antisemite : A person hostile toward jews "

American heritage dictionary ISBN 44000207095

:cantbeli:
:hug:
Yeah, we gonna show them.

[tacticalmanta]

Right of return is "western" speak for Israel to live up to obligations it agreed to.

1. Israel didn't agree to this
2. Even if it did, the right would be lost to those who want it when they took-up arms against Israel.
3. "Return" would mean the end of Isreal since the Pals breed out of control.


But yes, it's sad that country based on ethnic cleansing gets away with being called democracy.
The PA is not a country and it is not a Democracy

[UncleHambone]

In WW2 when they heard that Admiral Yamamoto was to be on a flight in the Solomon Islands they sent up P-38's to shoot him down.

Isn't part of war neutralizing/suppressing the enemy's command and control?

[littlefrench]

I was never a linguist mate!!*


It is : N'est ce pas ? = Isn't it ?

[W(M)D]

In WW2 when they heard that Admiral Yamamoto was to be on a flight in the Solomon Islands they sent up P-38's to shoot him down.

Yamamoto was at least a soldier and died in combat, unlike Yassin the terrorist (who should have been tipped down a staircase).
If he would have lived, perhaps Mr Blair would have come to visit Yassin in good time like Gaddafi (who is now no longer a seeming supporter of terror).

[aktarian]

Then why did Israel agree to it by accepting res 273?

Never heard of it, could you explain.

I did in one of my previous post. Even provided link to it.




Right of return is "western" speak for Israel to live up to obligations it agreed to.

1. Israel didn't agree to this

It did. Res 273.




2. Even if it did, the right would be lost to those who want it when they took-up arms against Israel.

However Israel denies return to all, not just those who took up arms.



3. "Return" would mean the end of Isreal since the Pals breed out of control.

Typical argument to promote supression of majority by minority. South Africa used same arguments....




The PA is not a country and it is not a Democracy

But Israel claims to be....

[W(M)D]

Of course Israel is a democracy, it has proper democracy and transparent elections and isnt ruled like it's neighbours by some old Imperial (Sykes-Picot) design e.g. Hussein of Jordan a country put on the map post 1919 or by dictators e.g. Assad.

[UoUo]

Then why did Israel agree to it by accepting res 273?

Never heard of it, could you explain.

I did in one of my previous post. Even provided link to it.




Right of return is "western" speak for Israel to live up to obligations it agreed to.

1. Israel didn't agree to this

It did. Res 273.




2. Even if it did, the right would be lost to those who want it when they took-up arms against Israel.

However Israel denies return to all, not just those who took up arms.



3. "Return" would mean the end of Isreal since the Pals breed out of control.

Typical argument to promote supression of majority by minority. South Africa used same arguments....




The PA is not a country and it is not a Democracy

But Israel claims to be....

I don't know why you even argue about that the "right" of retrun will Never be. and that it.
You say that it will never be peace if we don't agree? so it won't be peace.
Right now we have a country....the pal' don't.
They live in ****. not me.

And btw in israel we have 1 million israeli arabs that have all the right like The jews.

[MaDuce]

It doesn't matter how they killed him. If Mossad used a choke wire or pushed his wheelchair into the river the UN would still make a big deal out of it. It's becuase the UN goes out of it's way to appease the terrorists.

[W(M)D]

It doesn't matter how they killed him................... the UN would still make a big deal out of it. .............

The UN is a waste of space. They have never been truly effective and are a world 'feel good factor' only. They did little or stood aside (or waited on the sidelines) as 000s slaughtered in Rwanda, ex-Yugoslavia, Iraq (Saddam repression), etc.
Either they are totally inept or have some sort of underlying political agenda.
At the end of the day no country/people can rely upon the UN for protection, it is not assured.

[IDFM203]

“1. Israel didn't agree to this”

It did. Res 273.

I read 273, I didn’t see anywhere in there where it talks about refugees.

Also at the time Israel DID allow for anyone that chose to stay, to become citizens that is why there are over a million Israeli/arab citizens now.

That did not happen in the Arab nations that you so defend where they kicked out most of the Jews.

As for right of return, that is national suicide!!! No sane nation will ever voluntarily agree to commit itself to national suicide!!




But Israel claims to be.... Israel claims to be and rightfully so because ALL of its citizens, its Israeli, Arab, Christian, Buddhist etc. they all vote, they have their own representation in the government etc… that is a democracy.

Shalom :D

[S'13]

I did in one of my previous post. Even provided link to it.

You mean this?



http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/044/44/IMG/NR004444.pdf?OpenElement

Israel was admited into UN under condition it accepts res 194. ISrael is emmber of UN. Res 194 is ignored.

If so then the link doeasn't give me anything.

Israel made it clear that it doesn't accept resolution 194, even the Arabs didn't accept this resolution, so how in the world you expect us to follow it?! rofl

[aktarian]

Of course Israel is a democracy, it has proper democracy and transparent elections and isnt ruled like it's neighbours by some old Imperial (Sykes-Picot) design e.g. Hussein of Jordan a country put on the map post 1919 or by dictators e.g. Assad.

As did South africa. Of course the fact that majority of population was prevented from voting doesn't make it any less democratic, right? :roll:

[aktarian]

I read 273, I didn’t see anywhere in there where it talks about refugees.

Resolution of 11. December 1948




Also at the time Israel DID allow for anyone that chose to stay, to become citizens that is why there are over a million Israeli/arab citizens now.

That is, those thet weren't expelled or killed.



That did not happen in the Arab nations that you so defend where they kicked out most of the Jews.

Interesting you mention them expelling Jews. Was that less wrong, as wrong or more wrong than Israel expelling Palestinians?



As for right of return, that is national suicide!!! No sane nation will ever voluntarily agree to commit itself to national suicide!!

Then call Israel what it is. State declared against will of majority of population.



Israel claims to be and rightfully so because ALL of its citizens, its Israeli, Arab, Christian, Buddhist etc. they all vote, they have their own representation in the government etc… that is a democracy.

In SAR any white with citizenship was allowed to vote. Of course others couldn't but that doesn't make it undemocratic, right?

[S'13]

Of course Israel is a democracy, it has proper democracy and transparent elections and isnt ruled like it's neighbours by some old Imperial (Sykes-Picot) design e.g. Hussein of Jordan a country put on the map post 1919 or by dictators e.g. Assad.

As did South africa. Of course the fact that majority of population was prevented from voting doesn't make it any less democratic, right? :roll:

Please explain how the situation that was in SA resemble the situation in Israel that you bring it up in this debate?

[aktarian]

If so then the link doeasn't give me anything.

Israel made it clear that it doesn't accept resolution 194, even the Arabs didn't accept this resolution, so how in the world you expect us to follow it?! rofl

So Israel agreed to it with clear intentions of violating it. Sounds like respectfull state. :roll:

[S'13]

If so then the link doeasn't give me anything.

Israel made it clear that it doesn't accept resolution 194, even the Arabs didn't accept this resolution, so how in the world you expect us to follow it?! rofl

So Israel agreed to it with clear intentions of violating it. Sounds like respectfull state. :roll:

To me it sounds like a state that wants to exist... :|

[IDFM203]

I read 273, I didn’t see anywhere in there where it talks about refugees.

Resolution of 11. December 1948oh so now you are back to resolution 194
Why don’t you say so from the beginning instead of this resolution 273 games that you are playing :roll:

The Arab rejected this resolution at first and then changed its interpretation of it after they realized that their attempt to annihilate the Jews was going to fail.

Secondly this resolution is not legally binding.

Thirdly, Israel at the time accepted those that chose to stay and was willing to settle the issue in more full way in a comprehensive peace deal that involved all the Arab states, but that too the Arabs rejected.

Forthly I dont recall Israel accepting the arab interpretation of it!!

lalstly if you read the resoution carefully, it does not expect Israel to accapt a full right of return without any peace deal, which at the time the arabs rejected!!




“Also at the time Israel DID allow for anyone that chose to stay, to become citizens that is why there are over a million Israeli/arab citizens now. “

That is, those thet weren't expelled or killed. wow that sounds so ridicules :roll: , so for you, Israel decided to expel some and decided to keep others…..wow :cantbeli:

No the fact is that for the most part, Israel did not act in any mass expulsions and in fact openly said that any arab that chose to stay will get Israeli citizenship and a lot chose not to and FLED at the behest of their own Arab brethren telling them to do so, but a lot also accepted Israel’s offer and chose to stay, and that is why now there is over 20 percent of the population are Israeli/Arabs



“That did not happen in the Arab nations that you so defend where they kicked out most of the Jews.”

Interesting you mention them expelling Jews. Was that less wrong, as wrong or more wrong than Israel expelling Palestinians? Except for the fact that Israel didn’t expel the Palestinians like the Arabs expelled the Jews.

Can you tell me what is the percentage of Jews in Arab countries today?


As for right of return, that is national suicide!!! No sane nation will ever voluntarily agree to commit itself to national suicide!!

Then call Israel what it is. State declared against will of majority of population. no Israel is a state which acts in accordance with a majority of its CITIZENS!!



Israel claims to be and rightfully so because ALL of its citizens, its Israeli, Arab, Christian, Buddhist etc. they all vote, they have their own representation in the government etc… that is a democracy.

In SAR any white with citizenship was allowed to vote. Of course others couldn't but that doesn't make it undemocratic, right?…..and that is a lot different then in Israel where all of its CITIZENS, meaning its Jewish, Arab, Christian, anyone even the minority, have FULL voting rights and have representation and representatives that are serving in the Israeli Kensset.

Shalom :D

[aktarian]

Of course Israel is a democracy, it has proper democracy and transparent elections and isnt ruled like it's neighbours by some old Imperial (Sykes-Picot) design e.g. Hussein of Jordan a country put on the map post 1919 or by dictators e.g. Assad.

As did South africa. Of course the fact that majority of population was prevented from voting doesn't make it any less democratic, right? :roll:

Please explain how the situation that was in SA resemble the situation in Israel that you bring it up in this debate?

If you were part of ruling group in SA you lived in democracy. You could choose who will govern you etc. If you weren't part of this group, well, situation was a bit different.

[S'13]

Of course Israel is a democracy, it has proper democracy and transparent elections and isnt ruled like it's neighbours by some old Imperial (Sykes-Picot) design e.g. Hussein of Jordan a country put on the map post 1919 or by dictators e.g. Assad.

As did South africa. Of course the fact that majority of population was prevented from voting doesn't make it any less democratic, right? :roll:

Please explain how the situation that was in SA resemble the situation in Israel that you bring it up in this debate?

If you were part of ruling group in SA you lived in democracy. You could choose who will govern you etc.

I know about how things were in SA but how is it relevant to what's happening in Israel?

[aktarian]

oh so now you are back to resolution 194
Why don’t you say so from the beginning instead of this resolution 273 games that you are playing :roll:

Eh, I did. I said Israel agreed to res 194 by accepting res 273.




The Arab rejected this resolution at first and then changed its interpretation of it after they realized that their attempt to annihilate the Jews was going to fail.

How does right of return change?




Secondly this resolution is not legally binding.

No, but another resolution is and in that one Israel agrees to it.





Thirdly, Israel at the time accepted those that chose to stay and was willing to settle the issue in more full way in a comprehensive peace deal that involved all the Arab states, but that too the Arabs rejected.


This doesn't include those who stayed but those who didn't.



Forthly I dont recall Israel accepting the arab interpretation of it!!


Even if it didn't it is still violating rights granted by any interpretation.



lalstly if you read the resoution carefully, it does not expect Israel to accapt a full right of return without any peace deal, which at the time the arabs rejected!!

It doesn't? It says any person has right to return and doesn't mantion peace deal in context.



wow that sounds so ridicules :roll: , so for you, Israel decided to expel some and decided to keep others…..wow :cantbeli:


Yes. Expel some so others live in fear that this can happen to them as well.




No the fact is that for the most part, Israel did not act in any mass expulsions and in fact openly said that any arab that chose to stay will get Israeli citizenship and a lot chose not to and FLED at the behest of their own Arab brethren telling them to do so, but a lot also accepted Israel’s offer and chose to stay, and that is why now there is over 20 percent of the population are Israeli/Arabs

And they just fled without slightest pressure from Israel? Sure. :roll:



Except for the fact that Israel didn’t expel the Palestinians like the Arabs expelled the Jews.

No? How so?



Can you tell me what is the percentage of Jews in Arab countries today?[quote="IDFM203"]

Beats me.

[quote=IDFM203]
no Israel is a state which acts in accordance with a majority of its CITIZENS!!

As did SAR.



…..and that is a lot different then in Israel where all of its CITIZENS, meaning its Jewish, Arab, Christian, anyone even the minority, have FULL voting rights and have representation and representatives that are serving in the Israeli Kensset.

Shalom :D

Yes, and whites had full rights in SAR as well. It didn't mean they gave citizenship to just anybody.

[IDFM203]

oh so now you are back to resolution 194
Why don’t you say so from the beginning instead of this resolution 273 games that you are playing :roll:

Eh, I did. I said Israel agreed to res 194 by accepting res 273. .273 does not mandate Israel to accept a full right of return.

Again even 194 doesn’t do that…go read that again!! There are certain conditions under which it demands that and thus far those conditions haven’t been met by the arabs.


The Arab rejected this resolution at first and then changed its interpretation of it after they realized that their attempt to annihilate the Jews was going to fail.

How does right of return change? before it wasn’t any full right of return for the arabs thought they didn’t need that for they thought that they would win and annihilate Israel.

That didn’t happen so they reinterpreted to be full right of return after their attempt failed.

After thier failed attaempt which then chnges things, Israel would have been foolish to accept a right of return for that is national suicide and Israel did NOT agree to that!!





Secondly this resolution is not legally binding.

No, but another resolution is and in that one Israel agrees to it. yes and Israel there didn’t agree to any right of return as there was no such wording in that resolution!!





Thirdly, Israel at the time accepted those that chose to stay and was willing to settle the issue in more full way in a comprehensive peace deal that involved all the Arab states, but that too the Arabs rejected.

This doesn't include those who stayed but those who didn't. I am not sure what you mean here, please explin.




Forthly I dont recall Israel accepting the arab interpretation of it!!


Even if it didn't it is still violating rights granted by any interpretation. no its not!! Israel is not willing to commit national suicide, accepting a full right of return is just that!!

We have a right to live!! That’s a right too you know.




lalstly if you read the resoution carefully, it does not expect Israel to accapt a full right of return without any peace deal, which at the time the arabs rejected!

It doesn't? It says any person has right to return and doesn't mantion peace deal in context. Wrong!! There is certain wording and emphasis that are on purpose for a clear meaning (or for a legal meaning that is very important to understand) and that hasn’t been followed through on the part of the Arabs who never were willing to live in any peaceful coexistence no matter where the borders were.



wow that sounds so ridicules :roll: , so for you, Israel decided to expel some and decided to keep others…..wow :cantbeli:

Yes. Expel some so others live in fear that this can happen to them as well. you sound so ridicules here :roll: ….no if Israel was persuing this kind of policy, it would have expelled everyone……….it didn’t and in fact allowed anyone at the time that chose to stay and not fled, to become citizens and many did so, and now over 20 percent of the population is Israeli/Arab




And they just fled without slightest pressure from Israel? Sure. :roll: yes some did for yes in a war, there was a little pressure as is to be expected, but for the MOST part (meaning expect for a few isolated cases) MOST fled by the pressure by their fellow Arabs that told them to do so (and promised them to return after they “won” etc..)

Now when I first joined this site I brought down at least 15 or 20 ARAB quotes from that time (before revisionist history sets in) and sources that back up that it was the Arabs that made them flee.

If you “insist” on your response to this post, I will repost it then.


Except for the fact that Israel didn’t expel the Palestinians like the Arabs expelled the Jews.

No? How so? :cantbeli: :roll: They told them all to leave and were forced out and now there are very few Jews there.


Can you tell me what is the percentage of Jews in Arab countries today?

Beats me. hehe ;) figures you wouldnt know or care….its around .oooooooo1 percent.

In Israel the Arab citizens number around 20 percent.

You still don’t see any differences between the Arab treatment of the Jews and the Jewish treatment of the Arabs in terms of expulsion? :roll:




no Israel is a state which acts in accordance with a majority of its CITIZENS!!

As did SAR. so far my statement here holds true for yours and most western nations (and if you think that SAR belongs in my statement then that’s your prerogative).


…..and that is a lot different then in Israel where all of its CITIZENS, meaning its Jewish, Arab, Christian, anyone even the minority, have FULL voting rights and have representation and representatives that are serving in the Israeli Kensset.

Shalom :D

Yes, and whites had full rights in SAR as well. It didn't mean they gave citizenship to just anybody.
In Israel, any citizen, be it Jewish, ARAB, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, all have full rights and have full voting rights and have their own representatives in government etc…

Btw all this and the Arabs don’t even take on the most important national burden that most Israelis do, and that is serve in the military!! And yet they still have rights etc…

Israel is a democracy for all of its CITIZENS!!

Shalom :D

[Sayeret]

Aktarian said:


Interesting you mention them expelling Jews. Was that less wrong, as wrong or more wrong than Israel expelling Palestinians?

The Israelis didn’t cause the problems with the refugees the Arabs invading Israel in 1948 did. Benny Morris, a historian who is very critical of Israel and Zionists and an expert of the refugee problems said “The Yishuv [the Jews of Palestine who would soon become the Israelis] were on the defensive and upper and middle class Arabs-as many as seventy-five thousand fled”. Morris goes on to explain that the families that had the means to move to Cairo, Amman, or Beirut planned on going back to Palestine as they had done after the violence of the late 1930s. Benny Morris then says that the political leaders/families and most of the members of the AHC and the Hafia National Committee “may have feared a Husseini-ruled Palestine” as much as they worried about a Jewish ruled one.

Noam Chomsky who is an Anti-Israeli was talking about the second refugee problem when he said:

“In some areas Arab commanders ordered the villagers to evacuate to clear the ground for military purposes or to prevent surrender. More than half a dozen villages- just north of Jerusalem and in the Lower Galilee-were abandoned during these months as a result of such orders. Elsewhere, in East Jerusalem and in many villages around the country, the [Arab] commanders ordered women, old people, and children to be sent away out of harm’s way. Indeed, psychological preparation for the removal of depends from the battlefield begun in 1946-47, where the AHC and the Arab League had periodically endorsed such a move when contemplating the future war in Palestine.”

Morris believes that around two to three thousand Arabs fled their homes after the Arab commanders issued these orders. Contrary to Chomsky, Morris said “there was no Zionist policy to expel the Arabs or intimidate them into flight.” Even when referring to the second refugee problem Morris says “there was no blanket policy of expulsion .” Some the Haganah’s military actions contributed to the flight of refugees but such flight occurs in most wars if the winning side allows the people to leave, rather going out and killing them such as what the Arabs did. The Arabs would have massacred the people living in the Jewish cities had they captured them rather than let the refugees flee to another Jewish city.

The grand mufti declared Jihad and ordered his “Muslim brothers” to “murder the Jews. Murder them all.” Israel on the other hand would extend for citizenship to the Arabs. Although some Jews would rather have a smaller Arab population than a larger one the official Jewish organizations took no steps to assure a reduction in the Arab population. Some hostile towns were evacuated by the Israeli military but it was because they based Arab irregular units, which prevented access to the main road to Jerusalem.

Another phase of the Arab refugee problem took place when Haganah won battles over the city of Hafia. According to the historian Benny Morris, “The Arab leaders, preferring to not surrender, announced that they and their community intended to evacuate the town, despite a plea by the Jewish mayor to stay.” In Jaffa as a result of fierce fighting man of the town’s Arab population fled. Mr. Morris continues on by saying “the behavior of Jaffa’s Arab military also contributed: hey looted the empty houses and occasionally robbed and abused the remaining inhabitants.” Jaffa today is an Arab city, which has thousands of Arabs living in it. Hafia is now a mixed city which has thousands Arabs living in it too.

Morris who has been extremely critical of Israeli history and tradition with regard towards the refugee problems summarizes the refugee problem: “The Palestinian Refugee problem was born of war, not by design…The Arab leadership inside and outside Palestine probably helped precipitate the exodus… No Arab government tried to stem the exodus.”

Even in 1972 the former prime minister of Syria, Khalid al-Azm said that all of the refugee problems are from the Arabs:

Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of refugees…while it is we who made them leave…We who brought disaster upon… Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave… We rendered them dispossessed… We have accustomed them to begging…We have participated in lowering their moral and social level… Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson and throwing bombs upon…men, women, and children-all this in the service of political purposes.

The Arab armies invading Israel in 1948 caused the problems. If they would accept a Jewish state none of this would of ever happened.

[b]IDFM203 wrote:
Israel claims to be and rightfully so because ALL of its citizens, its Israeli, Arab, Christian, Buddhist etc. they all vote, they have their own representation in the government etc… that is a democracy.

Aktarian wrote:



In SAR any white with citizenship was allowed to vote. Of course others couldn't but that doesn't make it undemocratic, right?

What are you talking about? What occurs in SAR is democratic to the whites but not to everyone else. Israel allows EQUAL RIGHTS to all its citizens unlike SAR.

[tacticalmanta]

Forget it, Aktarian is not rational and does not want to understand the truth. You state X and he pretends it doesn't exist and responds to Y. So far he compared Israel to South Africa (unsuccessflly, re: Israeli Arabs), he asserts sovereign nations should take orders from a clearly biased UN, and that 6 million Arabs suddenly absorbed into a tiny county of only 6 million people would not destory it (specifically when it is the sworn intention of 80% of the Pals to destroy Israel, not to mention the economic and shear space issues.). The only people who compromise are Israelis.. a tiny country that doesn't even have control of it's holiest site! The Pals already have a country, it' called Jordan, and that's pretty good for a made-up people with no history.

We are just wasting our breath here, let him live in ignorance.

[IDFM203]

Forget it, Aktarian is not rational and does not want to understand the truth. You state X and he pretends it doesn't exist and responds to Y. So far he compared Israel to South Africa (unsuccessflly, re: Israeli Arabs), he asserts sovereign nations should take orders from a clearly biased UN, and that 6 million Arabs suddenly absorbed into a tiny county of only 6 million people would not destory it (specifically when it is the sworn intention of 80% of the Pals to destroy Israel, not to mention the economic and shear space issues.). The only people who compromise are Israelis.. a tiny country that doesn't even have control of it's holiest site! The Pals already have a country, it' called Jordan, and that's pretty good for a made-up people with no history.

We are just wasting our breath here, let him live in ignorance.Good post!

The only thing I will add is that yes he is ignorant but I feel it’s a willful ignorance for I cant believe that anyone can really be that stupid and naive to not understand how a full right of return is a danger to Israel’s very existence when anyone does a real and honest look at the real realities that we face.

As for debating him, yeah I know it’s a bit pointless but what can I do, I enjoy engaging in debate with someone on the extreme left/anti Israel/Jewish crowd for I know they exist in the real world and well the saying “know thay enemy” or at least understanding fully the opposing view point, comes to mind when I debate with some of these people.

P.S. PM sent

Shalom :D

[Sayeret]

Forget it, Aktarian is not rational and does not want to understand the truth. You state X and he pretends it doesn't exist and responds to Y. So far he compared Israel to South Africa (unsuccessflly, re: Israeli Arabs), he asserts sovereign nations should take orders from a clearly biased UN, and that 6 million Arabs suddenly absorbed into a tiny county of only 6 million people would not destory it (specifically when it is the sworn intention of 80% of the Pals to destroy Israel, not to mention the economic and shear space issues.). The only people who compromise are Israelis.. a tiny country that doesn't even have control of it's holiest site! The Pals already have a country, it' called Jordan, and that's pretty good for a made-up people with no history.

We are just wasting our breath here, let him live in ignorance.

Great post

I don't really expect to change Aktarian's views but like IDFM203 I am debating just for the fun of it. Also I learn something, since I had to look things up to counter what Aktarian is saying.

[Argyll]

Aye it's funny how the original Topic subject gets quickly forgotten in these debates ;)

[aktarian]

273 does not mandate Israel to accept a full right of return.

It requires Israel to accept 194 as condition to be admited into UN.



Again even 194 doesn’t do that…go read that again!! There are certain conditions under which it demands that and thus far those conditions haven’t been met by the arabs.


I did. It doesn't emntiona ny conditions regarding return.



before it wasn’t any full right of return for the arabs thought they didn’t need that for they thought that they would win and annihilate Israel.

That didn’t happen so they reinterpreted to be full right of return after their attempt failed.

After thier failed attaempt which then chnges things, Israel would have been foolish to accept a right of return for that is national suicide and Israel did NOT agree to that!!


It calls for right of return to anybody wishing to do so and willing to live in peace. How does Arab interpretation differ?



yes and Israel there didn’t agree to any right of return as there was no such wording in that resolution!!

It agreed toa ccept res 194.



I am not sure what you mean here, please explin.

That those who stayed don't need to be involved in all this as we are talkign about those who left.



no its not!! Israel is not willing to commit national suicide, accepting a full right of return is just that!!

We have a right to live!! That’s a right too you know.

You have the right to live but you don't have right to impose will of minority to majority.



Wrong!! There is certain wording and emphasis that are on purpose for a clear meaning (or for a legal meaning that is very important to understand) and that hasn’t been followed through on the part of the Arabs who never were willing to live in any peaceful coexistence no matter where the borders were.

It clearly states that people wishing to return have the right to do so. It doesn't mention peace treaty in context.



you sound so ridicules here :roll: ….no if Israel was persuing this kind of policy, it would have expelled everyone……….it didn’t and in fact allowed anyone at the time that chose to stay and not fled, to become citizens and many did so, and now over 20 percent of the population is Israeli/Arab


Some choose to stay, some were expelled.



yes some did for yes in a war, there was a little pressure as is to be expected, but for the MOST part (meaning expect for a few isolated cases) MOST fled by the pressure by their fellow Arabs that told them to do so (and promised them to return after they “won” etc..)

Now when I first joined this site I brought down at least 15 or 20 ARAB quotes from that time (before revisionist history sets in) and sources that back up that it was the Arabs that made them flee.

If you “insist” on your response to this post, I will repost it then.


Well, it all comes down to your definiton of "little pressure".



:cantbeli: :roll: They told them all to leave and were forced out and now there are very few Jews there.

Similar to what happened to Palestinians.



hehe ;) figures you wouldnt know or care….its around .oooooooo1 percent.

In Israel the Arab citizens number around 20 percent.

You still don’t see any differences between the Arab treatment of the Jews and the Jewish treatment of the Arabs in terms of expulsion? :roll:


Only in numbers.



In Israel, any citizen, be it Jewish, ARAB, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, all have full rights and have full voting rights and have their own representatives in government etc…

Yes,a nd in SAR any citizen could vote as well.



Btw all this and the Arabs don’t even take on the most important national burden that most Israelis do, and that is serve in the military!! And yet they still have rights etc…

Israel is a democracy for all of its CITIZENS!!

Shalom :D

Exactlly my point.

[IDFM203]

Right of return

Resolution 194

I belive the Arabs themselves rejected this!

Nor did Israel agree to this.

Listen I can copy and paste a whole explanation of this but I feel it would sidetrack from the main point (the principle of right of return and why Israel objects to it in general notwithstanding our debate over a supposed acceptance in 1948) so here is a link to it (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html#h) (click on the Myth titled "UN resolutions call for Israel to repatriate all Palestinian refugees") Now yes its Jewish site, but hey your saying Israel accepted it well if so you should hear exactly what Israel did accept from an Israeli POV.

273 Israel did not accept any right of return. Read it again.


Listen all this is games for all you are doing is arguing semantics that are irrelevant to the main issue, for the bottom line is that whether you think Israel at first agreed to it and then reneged on it or I say they never did agree to that, the bottom line is that for the most part, MOST Israeli politicians and MOST Israelis for that matter have always rejected a full right of return (non-withstanding your false hang-ups of that one year) for we understand that accepting that is in essence committing national suicide.

So if you want to continue debating this, do so from the principle of where Israelis reject that principle as I outlined in general and not on how you say that Israel accepted a resolution or not for the bottom line is that Israel now (and I say from the point of the Arab rejection of any compromise and then their invasion in 1948) a clear majority reject this principle based on the reality of it in essence committing national suicide.


So trust me we don’t accept right of return, you think that’s wrong then tell me how so in principle (and not on how you say we accepted it back then) and how you feel that it doesn’t endanger our vital security


Most of the Arabs fled at their own will at the behest of their Arab brethren…….

(The first paragraph here and the those Arab quotes are from a website….the rest of this post is my own words)
The refugee problem was created in 1947-48, when the Palestinians and their Arab allies rejected United Nations Resolution 181 and tried to prevent by force implementation of the partition plan that called for the creation of a Jewish state alongside an Arab state in Palestine. During the fighting, 600,000 to 700,000 Arabs fled or were driven out of areas that eventually became the state of Israel. (There were also about 17,000 Jewish refugees who fled or were driven out of areas that came under Arab, i.e., Jordanian, control.) Israel's record in this chain of developments was far from spotless. But the major reason for the displacement of people was the war itself, which the Arabs imposed on Israel in an attempt to abort its birth

Now lets get one point clear. Besides all the Arabs fleeing because of the Arab announcements to do so, of course some of them fled because of fear of Israel but that is understandable when there is great confusion going on being that it is in middle of a war that was started by them and their fellow Arab brethren. I mean Israel made all sorts of declarations that they could stay but of course in middle of a war, in which the Jews were fighting for their survival it wasn’t like Jewish fighters in middle of the war would stop for a second in middle of a battle and war to jump all day with flowers and waving to the Arabs to stay for they were pretty occupied fighting this Arab onslaughts. But again all this doesn’t negate all the radio and newspaper and public sermons to leave by their fellow Arab brethren as I have brought down, which had the most effect on them leaving.

(This is from a previous post of mine that I took from a website that I posted on some thread a while ago)


Here is some of THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE:
(Just note that most (though not all) of these are all of Arab sources, and a lot from the times itself, you know before revisionist history sets in)


"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemmed to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable".
-by Abu Mazen, from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976

"The first group of our fifth column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere. . . . At the first sign of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle."
- Ash Shalab (Jaffa newspaper), January 30, 1948

"The Arab streets are curiously deserted and, ardently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa."
- London Times, May 5, 1948

"The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."
- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, in the Beirut newspaper Sada al Janub, August 16, 1948

"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." (by their Arab brethren)
- The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948

"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."
- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949

"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."
- Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183

"The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city...By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.".
- Time, May 3, 1948, p. 25

The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea.
- Kenneth Bilby, in New Star in the Near East (New York, 1950), pp. 30-31

I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem, [Daily Telegraph, September 6, 19481
- Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, in the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph, September 6, 1948

The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.
- Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949

We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.
- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir Am Nakbah ("The Secret Behind the Disaster") by Nimr el Hawari, Nazareth, 1952

The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. . . . He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean. . . Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.
-Habib Issa, Secretary General of the Arab League (Azzam Pasha's successor), in the newspaper Al Hoda, June 8, 195

Some of the Arab leaders and their ministers in Arab capitals . . . declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine. Many of the Palestinian Arabs were misled by their declarations.... It was natural for those Palestinian Arabs who felt impelled to leave their country to take refuge in Arab lands . . . and to stay in such adjacent places in order to maintain contact with their country so that to return to it would be easy when, according to the promises of many of those responsible in the Arab countries (promises which were given wastefully), the time was ripe. Many were of the opinion that such an opportunity would come in the hours between sunset and sunrise.
- Arab Higher Committee, in a memorandum to the Arab League, Cairo, 1952, quoted in The Refugee in the World, by Joseph B. Schechtman, 1963

"The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."
- from the Jordan daily Ad Difaa, September 6, 1954

"The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war."
- General Glubb Pasha, in the London Daily Mail on August 12, 1948

"The Arab exodus from other villages was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews"
-Yunes Ahmed Assad, refugee from the town of Deir Yassin, in Al Urdun, April 9, 1953

"[The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel."
- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, according to Rev. Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949

"Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe. [However] ...A large road convoy, escorted by [British] military . . . left Haifa for Beirut yesterday. . . . Evacuation by sea goes on steadily. ...[Two days later, the Jews were] still making every effort to persuade the Arab populace to remain and to settle back into their normal lives in the towns... [as for the Arabs,] another convoy left Tireh for Transjordan, and the evacuation by sea continues. The quays and harbor are still crowded with refugees and their household effects, all omitting no opportunity to get a place an one of the boats leaving Haifa.""
-Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz

"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did."
-Jamal Husseini, Acting Chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, told to the United Nations Security Council, quoted in the UNSC Official Records (N. 62), April 23, 1948, p. 14

"the military and civil authorities and the Jewish representative expressed their profound regret at this grave decision [to evacuate]. The [Jewish] Mayor of Haifa made a passionate appeal to the delegation to reconsider its decision"
- The Arab National Committee of Haifa, told to the Arab League, quoted in The Refugee in the World, by Joseph B. Schechtman, 1963

"...our city flourished and developed for the good of both Jewish and Arab residents ... Do not destroy your homes with your own hands; do not bring tragedy upon yourselves by unnecessary evacuation and self-imposed burdens. By moving out you will be overtaken by poverty and humiliation. But in this city, yours and ours, Haifa, the gates are open for work, for life, and for peace, for you and your families."
The Haifa Workers' Council bulletin, 28 April 1948

"...the Jewish hagana asked (using loudspeakers) Arabs to remain at their homes but the most of the Arab population followed their leaders who asked them to leave the country."
The TIMES of London, reporting events of 22.4.48

" The existence of these refugees is a direct result of the Arab States' opposition to the partition plan and the reconstitution of the State of Israel. The Arab states adopted this policy unanimously, and the responsibility of its results, therefore is theirs.
...The flight of Arabs from the territory allotted by the UN for the Jewish state began immediately after the General Assembly decision at the end of November 1947. This wave of emigration, which lasted several weeks, comprised some thirty thousand people, chiefly well-to-do-families."
- Emil Ghory, secretary of the Arab High Council, Lebanese daily Al-Telegraph, 6 Sept 1948

"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return."
- Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, (Beirut, 1973), Part 1, pp. 386-387

"Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of refugees... while it is we who made them to leave... We brought disaster upon... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave... We have rendered them dispossessed... We have accustomed them to begging... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon... men, women and children - all this in service of political purposes..."
- Khaled al Azm, Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war [note: same person as above]

"As early as the first months of 1948 the Arab League issued orders exhorting the people to seek a temporary refuge in neighboring countries, later to return to their abodes in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish property."
- bulletin of The Research Group for European Migration Problems, 1957

One morning in April 1948, Dr. Jamal woke us to say that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), led by the Husseinis, had warned Arab residents of Talbieh to leave immediately. The understanding was that the residents would be able to return as conquerors as soon as the Arab forces had thrown the Jews out. Dr. Jamal made the point repeatedly that he was leaving because of the AHC's threats, not because of the Jews, and that he and his frail wife had no alternative but to go.
[color=red]Commentary Magazine -- January 2000,



Israel Made it clear throughout the Arab invasion and attempt at a full annihilation of us, that it didn’t want any Arabs to leave and it said any one that chose to stay can and indeed thousands and thousands of them did stay to where now Israel has more then a million Arab citizens. Now how is that the behavior of the Jews wanting to expel the Arabs?!? If they wanted to do that, they could have not let a single Arab become a citizen…letting some stay and kicking some out as you absurdly say, is simply ridicules and non sensical considering that we have over a million Arab citizens. The Arabs expelled the Jews in their nations, that is why there is less then .ooooooooo1 percent left, while in Israel there are over 20 percent of the population that are Israeli Arabs….that number difference is a big difference in telling who expelled and who for the most part did not!!



Yes,a nd in SAR any citizen could vote as well.yes and so too in the U.S. in Canada, in most countries in Europe, in Australia etc…...yes in those countries like in Israel (and you say as well as in SAR) any of its CITIZENS can indeed vote and all of its CITIZENS have their own representation that serve in their perspective governments.

I am happy we can agree on something ;)

So again, "In Israel (as in other western nations), any citizen, be it Jewish, ARAB, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, all have full rights and have full voting rights and have their own representatives in government etc"



Btw all this and the Arabs don’t even take on the most important national burden that most Israelis do, and that is serve in the military!! And yet they still have rights etc…

Israel is a democracy for all of its CITIZENS!!



Exactlly my point.Yes so now you agree that Israel is a democracy….great, again I am happy we finally see eye to eye here ;)

Shalom :D

[aktarian]

Right of return

Resolution 194

I belive the Arabs themselves rejected this!

Nor did Israel agree to this.

Listen I can copy and paste a whole explanation of this but I feel it would sidetrack from the main point (the principle of right of return and why Israel objects to it in general notwithstanding our debate over a supposed acceptance in 1948) so here is a link to it (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html#h) (click on the Myth titled "UN resolutions call for Israel to repatriate all Palestinian refugees") Now yes its Jewish site, but hey your saying Israel accepted it well if so you should hear exactly what Israel did accept from an Israeli POV.

I read it. You can say all you want that ISrael rejects 194 but by accepting 273 it accepted 194 as well. no amtter how much ISrael denies it, ignores it etc....



273 Israel did not accept any right of return. Read it again.

I did. It means Israel accepts res 194 as condition tob eing admited to UN.



Listen all this is games for all you are doing is arguing semantics that are irrelevant to the main issue, for the bottom line is that whether you think Israel at first agreed to it and then reneged on it or I say they never did agree to that, the bottom line is that for the most part, MOST Israeli politicians and MOST Israelis for that matter have always rejected a full right of return (non-withstanding your false hang-ups of that one year) for we understand that accepting that is in essence committing national suicide.

I never said ISrael will allow them. I'm saying they agreed to it but refused. Hey, I can provide list of things countries promised to do but broken them soon after.



So if you want to continue debating this, do so from the principle of where Israelis reject that principle as I outlined in general and not on how you say that Israel accepted a resolution or not for the bottom line is that Israel now (and I say from the point of the Arab rejection of any compromise and then their invasion in 1948) a clear majority reject this principle based on the reality of it in essence committing national suicide.


You can reject it as much as you wish. But fact remeins you agreed to it but now refuse to. I men, it's not as if this is something new.



So trust me we don’t accept right of return, you think that’s wrong then tell me how so in principle (and not on how you say we accepted it back then) and how you feel that it doesn’t endanger our vital security

That Israel is refusing right of return is established fact. However pont is that by doing it Israel is breaking what they agreed to.




Most of the Arabs fled at their own will at the behest of their Arab brethren…….

Allow me to respond with qoutes as well....

Ben Gurion



"They [Mishmar Ha'emek people] faced a cruel reality ... [and] saw that there was [only] one way and that was to expel the Arab villagers and burn the villages. And they did this. And they were the first to do this." (Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem By Benny Morris, p. 116)



"We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way. . . . I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of [Palestinian] Arab population." (Benny Morris, p. 181)



"The appeals to the Arabs [of Haifa] to stay, Golda's mission, and other similar gestures were the result of political considerations, but they did not reflect [Ben-Gurion's] basic stand. In internal discussions, in instructions to his people, the 'old man' demonstrated a clear stand: it was better that the smallest possible number of [Palestinian] Arabs remain with in the [Jewish] state." (Simha Falpan, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, p. 84)

Chaim Weizmann


" a miraculous CLEARING of the land: the miraculous simplification of Israel's task."

Yigal Allon


"The echo of the fall of [Palestinian] Arab Safad carried far . . . The confidence of thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs of the Hula [Valley] was shaken . . . We had ONLY five days left . . . until 15 May [1948]. We regarded it as imperative to CLEANSE [of Palestinian Arabs] the interior of the Galilee and create JEWISH territorial continuity in the whole of the Upper Galilee. The protracted battles reduced our forces, and we faced major tasks in blocking [prospective Syrian and Lebanese] invasion routes. We, therefore, looked for a means that would not oblige us to use force to DRIVE OUT tens of thousands of hostile [Palestinian] Arabs left in the Galilee and who, in the event of an invasion, could strike at us from behind. We tried to utilize a stratagem that exploited the [Arabs] defeat in Safad and in area cleared by [Operation] Broom - a stratagem that WORKED WONDERFULLY.
I gathered the Jewish mukhtars [Kibbutz chiefs], who had ties with the different [local Palestinian] Arab villages, and I asked them to WHISPER in the ears of several [Palestinian] Arabs that a giant Jewish reinforcement had reached the Galilee and were about to CLEAN OUT the villages of Hula, [and] to advise them as friends, to FLEE while they could. And rumour spread throughout Hula that the time had come to flee. The flight encompassed tens of thousands. The stratagem FULLY achieved its objective . . . and we were able to deploy ourselves in face of the [prospective] invaders along the borders, with out fear for our rear." (Benny Morris, p. 122)

Moshe Sharett


"[W]hen the Jewish state is established--it is very possible that the result will be transfer of [the Palestinian] Arabs." (Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, p. 254)


"With regard to the refugees, we are determined to be adamant while the war lasts. Once the return tide starts, it will be impossible to stem it, and it will prove our undoing. As for the future, we are equally determined to explore all possibilities of getting rid, once and for all, of the huge [Palestinian] Arab minority [referring to the Palestinian Israeli citizens of Israel ] which originally threatened us. What can be achieved in this period of storm and stress [referring to the 1948 war] will be quite unattainable once conditions get stabilized. A group of people [headed by Yosef Weitz] has already started working on the study of resettlement possibilities [for the Palestinian refugees] in other lands . . . What such permanent resettlement of 'Israeli' Arabs in the neighboring territories will mean in terms of making land available in Israel for settlement of our own people requires no emphasis." (Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem By Benny Morris, p. 149-150 & The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities, Simha Flapan p. 105)

Yosef Weitz




"question of evacuating/clearing out the [Palestinian] Arabs. ...[ten days later] [we] must direct our war towards the removal of as many Arabs as possible from boundaries of out state. The guarding of their property after their removal is a secondary question, [Weitz recorded] Finally it was agreed that I would submit a proposal for [Palestinian Arab] removal from localities based on my considerations." (Nur Masalha , Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 186)


"I made a summery of a list of the [Palestinian] Arab villages which in my opinion must be cleared out in order to complete Jewish regions. I also made a summery of the places that have land disputes and must be settled by military means." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 186)"


"Khayriyah and Saqiyah [two Palestinian Arab villages in the coastal plain] have also been cleared out. My plan is getting implemented." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 186)




"The Beit Shean [Beisan] Valley is the gate for out state in the Galilee .... I told them [referring Beisan Valley Jewish representatives] that its clearing [of the Palestinian Arabs] is the need of the hour." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 187)



Shmuel Zuchovitzky


"I think that whenever you discuss it or submit a memo on the question of the transfer, you must make it ABSOLUTELY clear that this transfer is one of the conditions on which we are establishing our state and that the Mandatory Government should carry this out." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p.110)




"I am convinced that it would be impossible to carry out transfer without compulsion. I do not see in this any immoral measure. I want to help the Jews to come to the Jewish state and to HELP the [Palestinian] Arabs to cross to the Arab state. I know that these things are not easy and involve a lot of difficulties ..... And also [land] expropriation must be carried out. And we must suggest now that we are prepared to carry out [land] expropriation . In Lita and Latvia there was also expropriation. Latvia finished the whole thing in two years and now everything is all right. But we will carry out confiscation with money and not a small amount. But it must be implemented as speedily as possible." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 110)

[IDFM203]

Haha ;) typical you cant argue a point so you insist on semantics :roll:

Again you say we accepted right of return I say we didn’t, I brought down sources that explain clearly the wording in those resolutions and what exactly those resolutions mean in those times and it is clear that Israel did not accept a unconditional right of return (even in 194), for that is national suicide…again go read it.

Anyways like I said before, fine you say Israel is reneging ok thats what you say, lets get past that (for we can go in circles)

I repeat” Listen all this is games for all you are doing is arguing semantics that are irrelevant to the main issue, for the bottom line is that whether you think Israel at first agreed to it and then reneged on it or I say they never did agree to that, the bottom line is that for the most part, MOST Israeli politicians and MOST Israelis for that matter have always rejected a full right of return (non-withstanding your false hang-ups of that one year) for we understand that accepting that is in essence committing national suicide.

So if you want to continue debating this, do so from the principle of where Israelis reject that principle as I outlined in general and not on how you say that Israel accepted a resolution or not for the bottom line is that Israel now (and I say from the point of the Arab rejection of any compromise and then their invasion in 1948) a clear majority reject this principle based on the reality of it in essence committing national suicide"


So trust me we don’t accept right of return, you think that’s wrong then tell me how so in principle (and not on how you say we accepted it back then) and how you feel that it doesn’t endanger our vital security”

Can you debate on why most of us refuse a full right of return or not?? (and not on how you say we accapted it back then) If not then you offer no intelligent input into this debate but instead are just spinning round and round in semantics.

I like opposing viewpoints and I am here for debate, and not some games that you might play.





As for your quotes, hmm most of them are from benny morris on what he claims others said. Secondly most of those quotes are from a few Israelis that talked about some things that they wanted to do, though I can also bring you quotes from those same people, especially ben gurion where he openly asks for the Arabs to stay….


Lastly I never denied that we didn’t have any part in it nor that no Israeli never talked about it (and as I said we don’t have a spotless record as well), for yes there was a general animosity after the Arabs invaded in their intention to kill every Jew, but for the most part, a lot of Israelis then were asking for them to stay and for the most part it was their Arab brethren that made them leave and your quotes do not diminish that truth or what those Arabs themselves said.



Again………..and a lot of these are from the Arabs themselves and not from some historian years later.


Here is some of THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE:
(Just note that most (though not all) of these are all of Arab sources, and a lot from the times itself, you know before revisionist history sets in)


"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemmed to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable".
-by Abu Mazen, from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976

"The first group of our fifth column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere. . . . At the first sign of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle."
- Ash Shalab (Jaffa newspaper), January 30, 1948

"The Arab streets are curiously deserted and, ardently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa."
- London Times, May 5, 1948

"The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."
- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, in the Beirut newspaper Sada al Janub, August 16, 1948

"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." (by their Arab brethren)
- The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948

"It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem."
- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949

"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."
- Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183

"The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city...By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.".
- Time, May 3, 1948, p. 25

The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea.
- Kenneth Bilby, in New Star in the Near East (New York, 1950), pp. 30-31

I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem, [Daily Telegraph, September 6, 19481
- Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, in the Beirut newspaper, Daily Telegraph, September 6, 1948

The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.
- Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949

We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.
- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir Am Nakbah ("The Secret Behind the Disaster") by Nimr el Hawari, Nazareth, 1952

The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. . . . He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean. . . Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.
-Habib Issa, Secretary General of the Arab League (Azzam Pasha's successor), in the newspaper Al Hoda, June 8, 195

Some of the Arab leaders and their ministers in Arab capitals . . . declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine. Many of the Palestinian Arabs were misled by their declarations.... It was natural for those Palestinian Arabs who felt impelled to leave their country to take refuge in Arab lands . . . and to stay in such adjacent places in order to maintain contact with their country so that to return to it would be easy when, according to the promises of many of those responsible in the Arab countries (promises which were given wastefully), the time was ripe. Many were of the opinion that such an opportunity would come in the hours between sunset and sunrise.
- Arab Higher Committee, in a memorandum to the Arab League, Cairo, 1952, quoted in The Refugee in the World, by Joseph B. Schechtman, 1963

"The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."
- from the Jordan daily Ad Difaa, September 6, 1954

"The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war."
- General Glubb Pasha, in the London Daily Mail on August 12, 1948

"The Arab exodus from other villages was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews"
-Yunes Ahmed Assad, refugee from the town of Deir Yassin, in Al Urdun, April 9, 1953

"[The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel."
- Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, according to Rev. Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949

"Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe. [However] ...A large road convoy, escorted by [British] military . . . left Haifa for Beirut yesterday. . . . Evacuation by sea goes on steadily. ...[Two days later, the Jews were] still making every effort to persuade the Arab populace to remain and to settle back into their normal lives in the towns... [as for the Arabs,] another convoy left Tireh for Transjordan, and the evacuation by sea continues. The quays and harbor are still crowded with refugees and their household effects, all omitting no opportunity to get a place an one of the boats leaving Haifa.""
-Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz

"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce they rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did."
-Jamal Husseini, Acting Chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, told to the United Nations Security Council, quoted in the UNSC Official Records (N. 62), April 23, 1948, p. 14

"the military and civil authorities and the Jewish representative expressed their profound regret at this grave decision [to evacuate]. The [Jewish] Mayor of Haifa made a passionate appeal to the delegation to reconsider its decision"
- The Arab National Committee of Haifa, told to the Arab League, quoted in The Refugee in the World, by Joseph B. Schechtman, 1963

"...our city flourished and developed for the good of both Jewish and Arab residents ... Do not destroy your homes with your own hands; do not bring tragedy upon yourselves by unnecessary evacuation and self-imposed burdens. By moving out you will be overtaken by poverty and humiliation. But in this city, yours and ours, Haifa, the gates are open for work, for life, and for peace, for you and your families."
The Haifa Workers' Council bulletin, 28 April 1948

"...the Jewish hagana asked (using loudspeakers) Arabs to remain at their homes but the most of the Arab population followed their leaders who asked them to leave the country."
The TIMES of London, reporting events of 22.4.48

" The existence of these refugees is a direct result of the Arab States' opposition to the partition plan and the reconstitution of the State of Israel. The Arab states adopted this policy unanimously, and the responsibility of its results, therefore is theirs.
...The flight of Arabs from the territory allotted by the UN for the Jewish state began immediately after the General Assembly decision at the end of November 1947. This wave of emigration, which lasted several weeks, comprised some thirty thousand people, chiefly well-to-do-families."
- Emil Ghory, secretary of the Arab High Council, Lebanese daily Al-Telegraph, 6 Sept 1948

"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return."
- Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, (Beirut, 1973), Part 1, pp. 386-387

"Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of refugees... while it is we who made them to leave... We brought disaster upon... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave... We have rendered them dispossessed... We have accustomed them to begging... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon... men, women and children - all this in service of political purposes..."
- Khaled al Azm, Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war [note: same person as above]

"As early as the first months of 1948 the Arab League issued orders exhorting the people to seek a temporary refuge in neighboring countries, later to return to their abodes in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish property."
- bulletin of The Research Group for European Migration Problems, 1957

One morning in April 1948, Dr. Jamal woke us to say that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), led by the Husseinis, had warned Arab residents of Talbieh to leave immediately. The understanding was that the residents would be able to return as conquerors as soon as the Arab forces had thrown the Jews out. Dr. Jamal made the point repeatedly that he was leaving because of the AHC's threats, not because of the Jews, and that he and his frail wife had no alternative but to go.
[color=red]Commentary Magazine -- January 2000,



Israel Made it clear throughout the Arab invasion and attempt at a full annihilation of us, that it didn’t want any Arabs to leave and it said any one that chose to stay can and indeed thousands and thousands of them did stay to where now Israel has more then a million Arab citizens. Now how is that the behavior of the Jews wanting to expel the Arabs?!? If they wanted to do that, they could have not let a single Arab become a citizen…letting some stay and kicking some out as you absurdly say, is simply ridicules and non sensical considering that we have over a million Arab citizens. The Arabs expelled the Jews in their nations, that is why there is less then .ooooooooo1 percent left, while in Israel there are over 20 percent of the population that are Israeli Arabs….that number difference is a big difference in telling who expelled and who for the most part did not!!

As of yet I haven’t seen you debunk those Arab quotes nor my last paragraph here.

Shalom :D

[Mr. Nielsen]

Sayeret, You seem to have got your hands on a copy of Alan Dershowitz's "The Case For Israel". But Dershowitz is not a historian, indeed he is very far from being one. "The Case For Israel" is hopelessly flawed.



Morris believes that around two to three thousand Arabs fled their homes after the Arab commanders issued these orders.

The sentence above is is from page 80 of "The Case for Israel", 2003.

What Benny Morris really said is this:


Altogether about two to three hundred thousand Arabs fled their homes during this stage of the exodus.

The correct sentence from Benny Morris appears on page 256, in "Righteous Victims" the 2001 edition.

Don't waste your time on Dershowitz, Benny Morris on the other hand is a good read.

[IDFM203]

Mr. Nielsen,

That’s funny for I would say the opposite (well to be more clear I have not read Dershowitz’s book so I am not going to endorse it) in don’t waste your time on these revisionist historions like benny morris, noam chumsky, norman finkelstien etc...

btw there are sites and authors that have deconstructed benny morris and have proven some of his falsehoods top be false that he made.

Anways that is all part of an academia debate (where some claim he is full of garbage while others like you claim he is the all knowing truth) and I am sure you will say the same for my authors or ones that I like.

However and as such, what you can’t dispute are the quotes that I brought down from ARAB sources themselves (that led to most of the Arabs fleeing) and not from some historians years later.

Nor can you dispute that in Israel there is over a million Arab citizens to where it is over 20 percent of the population, whereas in the Arab nations there is say around less then .oooooo1 percent of their population is Jewish after they expelled all the Jews.

Shalom :D

[Mr. Nielsen]

The problem with Dershowitz book is not so much his point of view. The problem is that it is so full of factual errors etc. it really is absurd because in the revies in the american newspapers it was higly praised.

I first heard about it when I came across a show where Norman Finkelstein on National Public Radio face to face with Alan Dershowitz called the book hoax, accusing Dershowitz of copying material from a book called "From Times Immemorial" by Joan Peters.

http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2003/sept/256/dnB20030924a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=07:10.3

Calling someone's book a hoax in public, is a pretty stiff charge. So I got very curious and I bought "The Case for Israel", and I got my local library to order home Joan Peters book so that I could see with my own eyes that Finkelstein was right in his critique.

And there seems to be a general problem with mr. Dershowitz. I recall looking in a bookshop in a book I believe called "Why terrorism works", where I found a a page where he claimed the palestinians were behind the famous hijacking which GIGN ended in Marseilles.



btw there are sites and authors that have deconstructed benny morris and have proven some of his falsehoods top be false that he made.

Efraim Karsh?



Anways that is all part of an academia debate (where some claim he is full of garbage while others like you claim he is the all knowing truth) and I am sure you will say the same for my authors or ones that I like.

May I ask which ones you likes?

[Webley]

I want to know why there is no UN condemnation of the PLO for it's use of children as shields and human bombs?

Good question!

[aktarian]

Haha ;) typical you cant argue a point so you insist on semantics :roll:

Again you say we accepted right of return I say we didn’t, I brought down sources that explain clearly the wording in those resolutions and what exactly those resolutions mean in those times and it is clear that Israel did not accept a unconditional right of return (even in 194), for that is national suicide…again go read it.

You say you didn't, I say you did. Since it's obvious we aren't going to convince each other I'm willing to drop it. But mind you, that doesn't mean I concede the argument or accept your POV.



So trust me we don’t accept right of return, you think that’s wrong then tell me how so in principle (and not on how you say we accepted it back then) and how you feel that it doesn’t endanger our vital security”

Can you debate on why most of us refuse a full right of return or not?? (and not on how you say we accapted it back then) If not then you offer no intelligent input into this debate but instead are just spinning round and round in semantics.

I like opposing viewpoints and I am here for debate, and not some games that you might play.

It's interesting you say that bringing back refugees will be suicide for Israel. Which can onyl mean one thing, that Israel was created in opposition to majority of population. And that ISrael refusal to allow them in means that Israel wishes to continue to impose will of minority over will of majority.

From that poin I can understand your POV that there woun't be return because that would undermine that forcing. And as Napoleon said "You can do a lot of things with bayonets but you can't sit long on them." Look at history. Wherever minority opressed majority there was no pace.



As for your quotes, hmm most of them are from benny morris on what he claims others said. Secondly most of those quotes are from a few Israelis that talked about some things that they wanted to do, though I can also bring you quotes from those same people, especially ben gurion where he openly asks for the Arabs to stay….


Quotes also include things they said after expulsion. As for Ben Gurion openlly asking them to stay....


"The appeals to the Arabs [of Haifa] to stay, Golda's mission, and other similar gestures were the result of political considerations, but they did not reflect [Ben-Gurion's] basic stand. In internal discussions, in instructions to his people, the 'old man' demonstrated a clear stand: it was better that the smallest possible number of [Palestinian] Arabs remain with in the [Jewish] state." (Simha Falpan, p. 84)



"They [Mishmar Ha'emek people] faced a cruel reality ... [and] saw that there was [only] one way and that was to expel the Arab villagers and burn the villages. And they did this. And they were the first to do this." (Benny Morris, p. 116)

So he openlly called on Arabs to stay and in private told his friends and others to drive them out? Guess people should listen to what he said in public, not what he said to them in private. :roll:




Lastly I never denied that we didn’t have any part in it nor that no Israeli never talked about it (and as I said we don’t have a spotless record as well), for yes there was a general animosity after the Arabs invaded in their intention to kill every Jew, but for the most part, a lot of Israelis then were asking for them to stay and for the most part it was their Arab brethren that made them leave and your quotes do not diminish that truth or what those Arabs themselves said.

Publicly calling on them to stay while in practise driving them out. Guess Arabs should listen to what Israelis were saying, not what they were doing. :roll:



Again………..and a lot of these are from the Arabs themselves and not from some historian years later.

And I provided quotes how Israeli leaders instructed their people to drive Arabs out.



As of yet I haven’t seen you debunk those Arab quotes nor my last paragraph here.

Shalom :D

Didn't I provided quotes that counteres claims Arabs left on their own will?

[aktarian]

And since this thread has gona about as OT as it can get I thought I might post soemthing about hamas, something that has something to do with original post. A bit old, but still interesting....




Analysis: Hamas history tied to Israel
By Richard Sale
UPI Terrorism Correspondent
Published 6/18/2002 8:13 PM


In the wake of a suicide bomb attack Tuesday on a crowded Jerusalem city bus that killed 19 people and wounded at least 70 more, the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, took credit for the blast.

Israeli officials called it the deadliest attack in Jerusalem in six years.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon immediately vowed to fight "Palestinian terror" and summoned his cabinet to decide on a military response to the organization that Sharon had once described as "the deadliest terrorist group that we have ever had to face."

Active in Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas wants to liberate all of Palestine and establish a radical Islamic state in place of Israel. It is has gained notoriety with its assassinations, car bombs and other acts of terrorism.

But Sharon left something out.

Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.

Israel "aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official.

According to documents United Press International obtained from the Israel-based Institute for Counter Terrorism, Hamas evolved from cells of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928. Islamic movements in Israel and Palestine were "weak and dormant" until after the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel scored a stunning victory over its Arab enemies.

After 1967, a great part of the success of the Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood was due to their activities among the refugees of the Gaza Strip. The cornerstone of the Islamic movements success was an impressive social, religious, educational and cultural infrastructure, called Da'wah, that worked to ease the hardship of large numbers of Palestinian refugees, confined to camps, and many who were living on the edge.

"Social influence grew into political influence," first in the Gaza Strip, then on the West Bank, said an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

According to ICT papers, Hamas was legally registered in Israel in 1978 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the movement's spiritual leader, as an Islamic Association by the name Al-Mujamma al Islami, which widened its base of supporters and sympathizers by religious propaganda and social work.

According to U.S. administration officials, funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel. The PLO was secular and leftist and promoted Palestinian nationalism. Hamas wanted to set up a transnational state under the rule of Islam, much like Khomeini's Iran.

What took Israeli leaders by surprise was the way the Islamic movements began to surge after the Iranian revolution, after armed resistance to Israel sprang up in southern Lebanon vis-à-vis the Hezbollah, backed by Iran, these sources said.

"Nothing provides the energy for imitation as much as success," commented one administration expert.

A further factor of Hamas' growth was the fact the PLO moved its base of operations to Beirut in the '80s, leaving the Islamic organization to grow in influence in the Occupied Territories "as the court of last resort," he said.

When the intifada began, Israeli leadership was surprised when Islamic groups began to surge in membership and strength. Hamas immediately grew in numbers and violence. The group had always embraced the doctrine of armed struggle, but the doctrine had not been practiced and Islamic groups had not been subjected to suppression the way groups like Fatah had been, according to U.S. government officials.

But with the triumph of the Khomeini revolution in Iran, with the birth of Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorism in Lebanon, Hamas began to gain in strength in Gaza and then in the West Bank, relying on terror to resist the Israeli occupation.

Israel was certainly funding the group at that time. One U.S. intelligence source who asked not to be named said that not only was Hamas being funded as a "counterweight" to the PLO, Israeli aid had another purpose: "To help identify and channel towards Israeli agents Hamas members who were dangerous terrorists."

In addition, by infiltrating Hamas, Israeli informers could only listen to debates on policy and identify Hamas members who "were dangerous hard-liners," the official said.

In the end, as Hamas set up a very comprehensive counterintelligence system, many collaborators with Israel were weeded out and shot. Violent acts of terrorism became the central tenet, and Hamas, unlike the PLO, was unwilling to compromise in any way with Israel, refusing to acquiesce in its very existence.

But even then, some in Israel saw some benefits to be had in trying to continue to give Hamas support: "The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the others, if they gained control, would refuse to have any part of the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place," said a U.S. government official who asked not to be named.

"Israel would still be the only democracy in the region for the United States to deal with," he said.

All of which disgusts some former U.S. intelligence officials.

"The thing wrong with so many Israeli operations is that they try to be too sexy," said former CIA official Vincent Cannestraro.

According to former State Department counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson, "the Israelis are their own worst enemies when it comes to fighting terrorism."

"The Israelis are like a guy who sets fire to his hair and then tries to put it out by hitting it with a hammer."

"They do more to incite and sustain terrorism than curb it," he said.

Aid to Hamas may have looked clever, "but it was hardly designed to help smooth the waters," he said. "An operation like that gives weight to President George Bush's remark about there being a crisis in education."

Cordesman said that a similar attempt by Egyptian intelligence to fund Egypt's fundamentalists had also come to grief because of "misreading of the complexities."

An Israeli defense official was asked if Israel had given aid to Hamas said, "I am not able to answer that question. I was in Lebanon commanding a unit at the time, besides it is not my field of interest."

Asked to confirm a report by U.S. officials that Brig. Gen. Yithaq Segev, the military governor of Gaza, had told U.S. officials he had helped fund "Islamic movements as a counterweight to the PLO and communists," the official said he could confirm only that he believed Segev had served back in 1986.

The Israeli Embassy press office referred UPI to its Web site when asked to comment.

Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International


http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=18062002-051845-8272r

[TALOS]

You guys are just spinnin your tires now.... neither one is gonna make any ground. you are both too entracted.
Suffice to say that to allow an openly hostile element to return to Israel would be foolish and even if the Jews had agreed to allow Arabs back I believe you yourself said Aktarian that the agreement was Arabs who are willing to live in peace, and we know that the good majority of Pals dont fit that description.
Think of it this way, a neighbor of yours seems willing to be friends and you say they are welcome anytime but everytime they come over to the house they steal something and wreck your house, regardless of what you said earlier you are undoubtedly goin to stop allowing them to come visit, and if you dont you would be just simply stupid right!

[Mr. Nielsen]

Think of it this way, a neighbor of yours seems willing to be friends and you say they are welcome anytime but everytime they come over to the house they steal something and wreck your house, regardless of what you said earlier you are undoubtedly goin to stop allowing them to come visit, and if you dont you would be just simply stupid right!

You forget that the neighbour is returning to his own house.

Apart from that the refugee problem needs to be solved for peace to be established. Already the palestinians have been making proposals, along the lines of only a symbolic number refugees to return to their homes. Then the rest could be massively compensated and settled in either the West Bank and East Jerusalem or in another country that was willing to accept them.

[TALOS]

Think of it this way, a neighbor of yours seems willing to be friends and you say they are welcome anytime but everytime they come over to the house they steal something and wreck your house, regardless of what you said earlier you are undoubtedly goin to stop allowing them to come visit, and if you dont you would be just simply stupid right!

You forget that the neighbour is returning to his own house.


And that would be the whole debate wouldnt it, Jordon would be considered their home by many others but I already know of your personal dislike of Jews by the mood of many of your posts.

[S'13]

It's interesting you say that bringing back refugees will be suicide for Israel. Which can onyl mean one thing, that Israel was created in opposition to majority of population. And that ISrael refusal to allow them in means that Israel wishes to continue to impose will of minority over will of majority.

From that poin I can understand your POV that there woun't be return because that would undermine that forcing. And as Napoleon said "You can do a lot of things with bayonets but you can't sit long on them." Look at history. Wherever minority opressed majority there was no pace.

If you read the history books you will see that the Land of Israel was to be divided into two separate states, one for the Arabs and one for the Jews,This was called the U.N Partition Plan.
Of course while the Jews agreed to this, the Arabs refused and when Israel declared independence, the Arab countries invaded the Israeli borders which were determined in the U.N Partition Plan, This was the start of the Israeli War of Independence.
In this war the young Jewish nation lost over 6000 men and women, over one percent of the Jewish population living in Israel at the time.
Of course the Arabs were defeated and with that defeat they lost many areas that the U.N had determined would be their land (all but the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, not that Egypt and Jordan were about to transfer this land to the conrol of their Palestinian "brothers" :roll: ).
At the time of the war many Palestinians were urged by their leaders to leave their homes in return at the end of the fighting to a "Palestine free of Jews". It is estimated that over 520,000 left Israel during the war.
Between 1945-1956 over 900,000 Jewish refugees left Arab countries, 600,000 of them immigrated to Israel.
So you see, Israel wasn't created in opposition to majority of population, since the land was to be divided into two separate states, one for the Arabs and one for the Jews. This was the plan from the very beginning. And the Arabs plan to destroy Israel also hasn't changed, only the means with which they will try to do so.

[Mr. Nielsen]

And that would be the whole debate wouldnt it, Jordon would be considered their home by many others but I already know of your personal dislike of Jews by the mood of many of your posts.

Jordan is not where the refugees came from. I have an issue with those, unfortunately not very few, people who keeps fostering ideas of a greater Israel. I believe that they have brought misfortune and insecurity upon the rest of the Israeli people, keeping from them the peace and security they deserve.

I don't have an issue with people for them being jewish.

[S'13]

Jordan is not where the refugees came from.

Your right the "Palestinian" (Arabs who settled the Land of Israel after the destruction of the second Temple) are from Saudi Arabia by origin, however they came to the Land of Israel via Jordan p-)

[Mr. Nielsen]

If you read the history books you will see that the Land of Israel was to be divided into two separate states, one for the Arabs and one for the Jews,This was called the U.N Partition Plan.
Of course while the Jews agreed to this, the Arabs refused and when Israel declared independence, the Arab countries invaded the Israeli borders which were determined in the U.N Partition Plan, This was the start of the Israeli War of Independence.

It is hardly surprising the palestinians didn't liked the partition. The Israelis would get more than half the area, while constituting less than half the population. And most of those were recent arrivals.

And at the time the armies of the arab (newly formed) states entered, the fighting had already been going on for moths.



It is estimated that over 520,000 left Israel during the war.

I believe the most accepted number is around 700,000. Arabs claiming as much as a million according to Benny Morris.

[S'13]

It is hardly surprising the palestinians didn't liked the partition. The Israelis would get more than half the area, while constituting less than half the population. And most of those were recent arrivals.

I would understand this claim if the Arabs had been willing to agree to a different partition plan, however the Arabs were not willing to divide the land with the Jews in any way whatsoever...

Also 75% of the land allocated to the Jews was desert, this because the Jews were the only inhabitants willing to settle and develop the Negev desert.
Sometimes I wonder if this piece land would have been worth anything if there wern't any Jewish immigrations to Israel, probably would still be a swamp infested land controlled by the Jordanians or by the Egyptians... :lol:

[TALOS]

It is hardly surprising the palestinians didn't liked the partition. The Israelis would get more than half the area, while constituting less than half the population. And most of those were recent arrivals.

I would understand this claim if the Arabs had been willing to agree to a different partition plan, however the Arabs were not willing to divide the land with the Jews in any way whatsoever...

Also 75% of the land allocated to the Jews was desert, this because the Jews were the only inhabitants willing to settle and develop the Negev desert.
Sometimes I wonder if this piece land would have been worth anything if there wern't any Jewish immigrations to Israel, probably would still be a swamp infested land controlled by the Jordanians or by the Egyptians... :lol:

Correct me if I am wrong but did not the Jews also purchase much of this "worthless " land from wealthy Arabs who didnt want it?
I know I have read that, it was in a book on the 6 day war.

[TALOS]

And that would be the whole debate wouldnt it, Jordon would be considered their home by many others but I already know of your personal dislike of Jews by the mood of many of your posts.

Jordan is not where the refugees came from. I have an issue with those, unfortunately not very few, people who keeps fostering ideas of a greater Israel. I believe that they have brought misfortune and insecurity upon the rest of the Israeli people, keeping from them the peace and security they deserve.

I don't have an issue with people for them being jewish.
By greater Israel you are meaning the elimination of Palestinians or is there something else you mean by that cause the idea I have heard is just a safe Israel free from suicide bombers and constant threats from the Arab nations

[Mr. Nielsen]

I would understand this claim if the Arabs had been willing to agree to a different partition plan, however the Arabs were not willing to divide the land with the Jews in any way whatsoever...

What would you do, if you were in their place?

Here is an analogy.

It is said that 2000 years ago a people called the Cimbre left the part of present day Denmark called Jutland. As the story goes this people moved southwards and perished somewhere in southern europe.

Now what if they didn't perish, if they were still living around in southern europe sustained by the hope of returning to Jutland.

Would the Danes be willing to share their land with them 2000 years later?
If the UN were to partition the country, would we accept it? Definitely not.

Would we want the swedes and norwegians to come to our aid, to kick out the Cimbres? Definitely.

Well, now it is a fact that the Cimbre's didn't return. And the state of Israel is a fact too.

[S'13]

It is hardly surprising the palestinians didn't liked the partition. The Israelis would get more than half the area, while constituting less than half the population. And most of those were recent arrivals.

I would understand this claim if the Arabs had been willing to agree to a different partition plan, however the Arabs were not willing to divide the land with the Jews in any way whatsoever...

Also 75% of the land allocated to the Jews was desert, this because the Jews were the only inhabitants willing to settle and develop the Negev desert.
Sometimes I wonder if this piece land would have been worth anything if there wern't any Jewish immigrations to Israel, probably would still be a swamp infested land controlled by the Jordanians or by the Egyptians... :lol:

Correct me if I am wrong but did not the Jews also purchase much of this "worthless " land from wealthy Arabs who didnt want it?
I know I have read that, it was in a book on the 6 day war.

Your correct, a lot of land was purchased from Arabs by the Jewish organizations, for example in the 20's the Jewish Agency purchased over 50,000 dunam of swamp land in the Yezreel Valley later turning it into agricultural land for Jewish settlements in the valley.

[Mr. Nielsen]

By greater Israel you are meaning the elimination of Palestinians or is there something else you mean by that cause the idea I have heard is just a safe Israel free from suicide bombers and constant threats from the Arab nations

I mean those who wants a greater Israel beyond the internationally accepted borders along the green line. Whether that be under the slogan of "two banks of the jordan: one is ours and the other too.", or only the West Bank, or the "modest" demand of only the illegal settlements. Those very settlements which, in my view, sustains Israel's insecurity.

[S'13]

I would understand this claim if the Arabs had been willing to agree to a different partition plan, however the Arabs were not willing to divide the land with the Jews in any way whatsoever...

What would you do, if you were in their place?

Here is an analogy.

It is said that 2000 years ago a people called the Cimbre left the part of present day Denmark called Jutland. As the story goes this people moved southwards and perished somewhere in southern europe.

Now what if they didn't perish, if they were still living around in southern europe sustained by the hope of returning to Jutland.

Would the Danes be willing to share their land with them 2000 years later?
If the UN were to partition the country, would we accept it? Definitely not.

Would we want the swedes and norwegians to come to our aid, to kick out the Cimbres? Definitely.

Well, now it is a fact that the Cimbre's didn't return. And the state of Israel is a fact too.

The fact is that the Land of Israel was never the "Palestinians land", the land was never governed by them and they never built a "Palestinian nation", it was allways governed by foreigners (Turks, British, and so on).
Also the Jews never left the land of Israel. There were allways Jewish communities left in the Land of Israel after the destruction of the second Temple, in places such as Jerusalem and Hebron (in 1929 over 67 Jews who were a part of the old Jewish community in Hebron were massacred by their Arab neighbors and later many left out of fear for their lifes)...

[TALOS]

By greater Israel you are meaning the elimination of Palestinians or is there something else you mean by that cause the idea I have heard is just a safe Israel free from suicide bombers and constant threats from the Arab nations

I mean those who wants a greater Israel beyond the internationally accepted borders along the green line. Whether that be under the slogan of "two banks of the jordan: one is ours and the other too.", or only the West Bank, or the "modest" demand of only the illegal settlements. Those very settlements which, in my view, sustains Israel's insecurity.
Ok, not flaming, asking , do you think Israel should give back all the land they won in battles started by the Arabs after the Arab refusal to accept those stated boundary lines?
They took a chance of ignoring the mandated lines and when they lost they said "we want those boundary lines now!"
Does that seem fair? they refused the boundaries, they took the risk and now Israel holds those areas. Now they say that the legal boundary lines are what they want but they arent willing to openly and publicly accept and recognize an Israeli state. Sounds rsiky to me.

[citizen-k]

By greater Israel you are meaning the elimination of Palestinians or is there something else you mean by that cause the idea I have heard is just a safe Israel free from suicide bombers and constant threats from the Arab nations

I mean those who wants a greater Israel beyond the internationally accepted borders along the green line. Whether that be under the slogan of "two banks of the jordan: one is ours and the other too.", or only the West Bank, or the "modest" demand of only the illegal settlements. Those very settlements which, in my view, sustains Israel's insecurity.
Ok, not flaming, asking , do you think Israel should give back all the land they won in battles started by the Arabs after the Arab refusal to accept those stated boundary lines?
They took a chance of ignoring the mandated lines and when they lost they said "we want those boundary lines now!"
Does that seem fair? they refused the boundaries, they took the risk and now Israel holds those areas. Now they say that the legal boundary lines are what they want but they arent willing to openly and publicly accept and recognize an Israeli state. Sounds rsiky to me.

It happened more then once... 67' is the last time.

The Arabs NEVER agreed on anything, everytime they lost more land - and then they asked to move back. (not that moving back helped - Egypt said more then once that in case of a war between Israel and Syria it will not stay still, and I doubt it they ment to say they will help Israel...)

[Mr. Nielsen]

It happened more then once... 67' is the last time

What exactly happened once more in 1967? That Israel attacked Egypt one more time?



The Arabs NEVER agreed on anything, everytime they lost more land - and then they asked to move back. (not that moving back helped - Egypt said more then once that in case of a war between Israel and Syria it will not stay still, and I doubt it they ment to say they will help Israel...)

It's not exactly unprecedented in history that one party's determination to fight increased with the loss of land.

[TALOS]

It happened more then once... 67' is the last time

What exactly happened once more in 1967? That Israel attacked Egypt one more time?



The Arabs NEVER agreed on anything, everytime they lost more land - and then they asked to move back. (not that moving back helped - Egypt said more then once that in case of a war between Israel and Syria it will not stay still, and I doubt it they ment to say they will help Israel...)

It's not exactly unprecedented in history that one party's determination to fight increased with the loss of land.
Nielsen, Egypt stated clearly their intent to eliminate Israel in 67 and also removed UN troops that were between them and Israel and the Syrians and the Jordanians all went on alert and moved troops to the borders. Do you think Israel should have just rolled over? I am curious now.

[Mr. Nielsen]

Nielsen, Egypt stated clearly their intent to eliminate Israel in 67 and also removed UN troops that were between them and Israel and the Syrians and the Jordanians all went on alert and moved troops to the borders. Do you think Israel should have just rolled over? I am curious now.

Whether Israel was justified in starting the six-day war is a matter that can be debated. Who is to blame for the build up of tension ahead of the war I believe is very debatable. What I'm sure about is that, the popular black and white posture of david confronting goliath with the back to the sea is not the case.

In my opion Israel was never in any danger of being annihilated, even if the arabs should have attacked first.

However i'm on my way to bed now, so we must continue the debate at some other time.

Godnat.

[W(M)D]

............ Who is to blame for the build up of tension ahead of the war I believe is very debatable. ..............In my opion Israel was never in any danger of being annihilated, even if the arabs should have attacked first. ...............

The tension was built up by Nasser, read the history books it is all a matter of fact. Blocking the Straits of Tiran, making the UN buffer force leave Sinai, etc that was down to Egypt and arab political posturing.
Israel carried out a pre-emptive strike for sound military (as well as political reasons) as militarily a) Israel in 1967 borders had no strategic geographical depth and therefore carried the fighting onto it's enemies real estate and b) if someone is going to hit you anyway, it is always better to put in the first punch and put them off balance.
If the arabs would have managed to attack first do you honestly believe they would have stopped their advance to negotiate some form of settlement with Israel. Look at the rhetoric from the arab leaders and press of that time period and you may understand their actual goals, look at the factual history.

[ronin2172]

So sorry nielson-san, Arab intent in '67 is pretty much a matter of record. Not to mention the Syrian artillery and rocket emplacements on the Golan heights which regularly shelled the kibbutzis (or kibbutzm?) in northern israel and the Fedayeen raids conducted from both the Gaza Strip and Sinai (Which is kinda provocative don't you think?)

You would have a stronger argument with Israeli intent concerning the invasion of Lebanon in '82. Clearing southern Lebanon of PLO rocktets is one thing but occupying Beruit and Tyre is something else!

[IDFM203]

You say you didn't, I say you did. Since it's obvious we aren't going to convince each other I'm willing to drop it. But mind you, that doesn't mean I concede the argument or accept your POV. haha ;) yeah I don’t expect you to.

Two things come to mind here.

First, I like debate and hearing differing view points, for they challnge me and ultimately make my convicaions stand stronger (well usually unless proven wrong..whereas so far that hasnt happned ;) ) however trying to change a view point I know is pointless and I am not here to do that, I am hear to simply engage in debate from a opposite view point , for I know people like you exsit and well like I said before the phrase “know thay enemy” comes to mind in debating a opposite view point, so when you say that I haven’t changed your POV, all I can do is laugh and think how you are all smug with your so called rightness all the way in some distant land far removed personally from what we face all the time….so yeah go have your POV, I will live with mine.

The second thing is that it’s funny how you, from some distant land, far removed personally from this conflict, how you feel you know better then us on what exactly we accepted.

Anyways, moving on...........




It's interesting you say that bringing back refugees will be suicide for Israel. Which can onyl mean one thing, that Israel was created in opposition to majority of population. And that ISrael refusal to allow them in means that Israel wishes to continue to impose will of minority over will of majority.

From that poin I can understand your POV that there woun't be return because that would undermine that forcing. And as Napoleon said "You can do a lot of things with bayonets but you can't sit long on them." Look at history. Wherever minority opressed majority there was no pace. Now this is a classic ;) :roll: …here you have in your mind already figured out what you think is my POV and then you debunk it when in reality all you have done is debunk your own made up POV of what you thought is mine when it is not!!!..classic indeed.

No like S13 said, modern Israel was established in reality after the Jews accepted to live in peaceful coexistence but the Arabs refused and then invaded in a effort to annihilate all the Jews, after their failed attempt, it become obvious that the desire was still there to wipe out all the Jews from a lot of the arabs and as such it become logical that to accept a full right of return would endanger the vital security of Israel and it would be national suicide.

This is about not wanting to go through another holocaust, especially vulentarily allowing ourselves to be wiped out, one in which the Arabs were clamoring (and a lot are still clamoring) to do.

Right of return is national suicide and Israels refusal of that is based soley on the prevention of allowing ourselves to vulentarliy commit national sucide and its on that and nothing else!!




So he openlly called on Arabs to stay and in private told his friends and others to drive them out? Guess people should listen to what he said in public, not what he said to them in private. :roll: Well first of all, all you have is benny morris accounts of what went on in private..yeah like that revisionist historians accounts should be believed :roll:

Secondly what some Israeli leaders said in public mattered, for the Arabs don’t hear any private conversation and what they heard from ben guion and others, was their announcements to stay in Israel, and the fact remains that a lot did to where Israel has over a million or 20 percent of its population are Israeli Arabs.

So what you have is benny morris, a known revisionist historian, who claims a few private conversations, while I have public announcements from Israelis to stay, which mattered more to the Arabs for that is what THEY heard, I also have all those Arab quotes from which you haven’t even bothered to address or disprove (hmm I wonder why :roll: ) and the reality on the ground of where thousands and thousands of Arabs that chose to stay and Israel DID grant them Israeli citizenship…hardly an act of a planned or forced mass expulsion!!

The Arabs on the other hand did expel the Jews and that is why there is less then .0000001 percent of Jews left.





Didn't I provided quotes that counteres claims Arabs left on their own will?No all you brought me was a few BENNY MORRIS alleged “private” quotes and even those do NOT counter at all what the Arabs were saying (as I brought down in great detail…hmm did you even bother to read it…for you should, I think you would be very surprised ;) ) and again "Lastly I never denied that we didn’t have any part in it nor that no Israeli never talked about it (and as I said we don’t have a spotless record as well), for yes there was a general animosity after the Arabs invaded in their intention to kill every Jew, but for the most part, a lot of Israelis then were asking for them to stay and for the most part it was their Arab brethren that made them leave and your quotes do not diminish that truth or what those Arabs themselves said (as I brought down in great detail)."

Shalom :D

[aktarian]

If you read the history books you will see that the Land of Israel was to be divided into two separate states, one for the Arabs and one for the Jews,This was called the U.N Partition Plan.
Of course while the Jews agreed to this, the Arabs refused and when Israel declared independence, the Arab countries invaded the Israeli borders which were determined in the U.N Partition Plan, This was the start of the Israeli War of Independence.

Yes, minority agreed to divide land and they (minority) keep it, majority rejected it.

[aktarian]

The second thing is that it’s funny how you, from some distant land, far removed personally from this conflict, how you feel you know better then us on what exactly we accepted.

Anyways, moving on...........

Interesting how this onyl applies to critics of Israel. If you criticise ISrael you get classic "You don't live (t)here, you can't criticise them." You can, however, criticise Palestinians without living under Israeli occupation, can criticise Saddam without living in Iraq under his rule, can criticise Iranian mullahs without living there etc etc. But not Israel. For that, you ahve to live there. :roll:



Now this is a classic ;) :roll: …here you have in your mind already figured out what you think is my POV and then you debunk it when in reality all you have done is debunk your own made up POV of what you thought is mine when it is not!!!..classic indeed.

I supposed that Israel wants to continue to live like it does now. Which is minority imposing it's will on majority. You clearlly stated that return of refugees would change Israel. So I thought you ment that they would change that rule of minority.

If there are other reasons Israel refuses to let them in feel free to post them.



No like S13 said, modern Israel was established in reality after the Jews accepted to live in peaceful coexistence but the Arabs refused and then invaded in a effort to annihilate all the Jews, after their failed attempt, it become obvious that the desire was still there to wipe out all the Jews from a lot of the arabs and as such it become logical that to accept a full right of return would endanger the vital security of Israel and it would be national suicide.

Jews agreed than majority of population should give up part of their land so that minority could establish state as they wish to. No sane people would agree to that.



This is about not wanting to go through another holocaust, especially vulentarily allowing ourselves to be wiped out, one in which the Arabs were clamoring (and a lot are still clamoring) to do.

So you preventivelly formed a state that will be run as minority wants and drove out those who didn't agree to it.



Right of return is national suicide and Israels refusal of that is based soley on the prevention of allowing ourselves to vulentarliy commit national sucide and its on that and nothing else!!

Basically continue minority rule over majority.



Well first of all, all you have is benny morris accounts of what went on in private..yeah like that revisionist historians accounts should be believed :roll:

Wow, that's interesting. When Sarayet posted quotes from him it was OK. when you posted qoutes by him it was OK as well. but once I post quotes that run counter to your views than he becomes revisionist etc. Why didn't you say to Sarayet is posting revisionist propaganda? because he was posting quotes you agreed to? :roll:



Secondly what some Israeli leaders said in public mattered, for the Arabs don’t hear any private conversation and what they heard from ben guion and others, was their announcements to stay in Israel, and the fact remains that a lot did to where Israel has over a million or 20 percent of its population are Israeli Arabs.

No, obviouslly they didn't hear what was said in private. but they felt and saw what was done to them, which later turned out to be what ben Gurion instructed them (his friends) to do in private.



So what you have is benny morris, a known revisionist historian,

Which, again, you had no troubles with when Sarayet or you psoted.



who claims a few private conversations, while I have public announcements from Israelis to stay, which mattered more to the Arabs for that is what THEY heard, I also have all those Arab quotes from which you haven’t even bothered to address or disprove (hmm I wonder why :roll: ) and the reality on the ground of where thousands and thousands of Arabs that chose to stay and Israel DID grant them Israeli citizenship…hardly an act of a planned or forced mass expulsion!!

What we have is somebody publiclly call on Arabs to stay and privatlly tell his peopel to rive them out. And then, to eveerybody surprise, they are driven out. Gee, I wonder how that happeend. :roll:



The Arabs on the other hand did expel the Jews and that is why there is less then .0000001 percent of Jews left.

Which was as wrong as Israel driving Arabs out.



No all you brought me was a few BENNY MORRIS alleged “private” quotes and even those do NOT counter at all what the Arabs were saying (as I brought down in great detail…hmm did you even bother to read it…for you should, I think you would be very surprised ;) )

And for the third time, Morris seems problematic to you when he says something you don't agree to. Otherwise he is reliable source.

As for qoutes. You keep posting qoutes that arabs left by themselves, I keep posting qoutes they were driven out. I'd say that is countering your qoutes.



and again "Lastly I never denied that we didn’t have any part in it nor that no Israeli never talked about it (and as I said we don’t have a spotless record as well), for yes there was a general animosity after the Arabs invaded in their intention to kill every Jew, but for the most part, a lot of Israelis then were asking for them to stay and for the most part it was their Arab brethren that made them leave and your quotes do not diminish that truth or what those Arabs themselves said (as I brought down in great detail)."

Shalom :D

You said it was small pressure. Then I provide qoutes how Jewish leaders urge their peopel to be more effective and drive them more out. Again, it depends on your definition of small pressure.

[IDFM203]

"The second thing is that it’s funny how you, from some distant land, far removed personally from this conflict, how you feel you know better then us on what exactly we accepted"


Interesting how this onyl applies to critics of Israel. If you criticise ISrael you get classic "You don't live (t)here, you can't criticise them." wow talk about a melodramatic statement :roll: …gees I feel like I want to cry for you now…. ;)

When did I say you cant?? I never said you cant do anything…hell your free to criticize whomever you like even Israel.

All I am saying is that I find it funny that you from some distant land would know better then me on what my people accepted.

I mean I am allowed to feel funny about things, or I guess you don’t think I am allowed a sense of humor :roll: (I say this in the same tone that you have used)

I never said that you couldn’t persist in claiming that you know or that you cant criticize Israel…you are allowed to do whatever you want.

But of course you need this whole melodrama…I actually applaud you…it was a good performance….clap clap ;) :lol:




I supposed that Israel wants to continue to live like it does now. No it in fact does not, but the reality is that it has no choice when faced with the fact that a large part of the Arabs and the Palestinians, are fighting for the whole destruction of ALL of Israel.


You clearlly stated that return of refugees would change Israel. No I said that a full right of return is national suicide for Israel.

The word you use, Change is a understatement!!



So I thought you ment that they would change that rule of minority. yes in essence it would change to where there would be no more Jews left or close to it.

btw or we the minority? :roll:


If there are other reasons Israel refuses to let them in feel free to post them. …and this will be my forth or fifth time posting another reason then your own made up reasons why we refuse.

Israel refuses a right of return for one and only reason. Allowing a hostile population, where still a large part fight for the whole destruction of Israel, is in essence Israel committing national suicide.

Right of return = National suicide

Its that simple



Jews agreed than majority of population should give up part of their land so that minority could establish state as they wish to. No sane people would agree to that. No, Jews agreed to a partition on a land that at the time neither belonged to the Jews or to the Arabs and they accepted that plan after it become clear that no matter what, the Arab inhabitants there were never going to live in peaceful coexistence in one nation with their Jewish inhabitant and as such we accepted a UN partition in which we got most of the uninhabited land (like desert and other uninhabited land) while the Arabs were allotted most of the “good” land and even this was rejected by them and they invaded to annihilate ALL of the Jews in order to get ALL of the land!!



This is about not wanting to go through another holocaust, especially vulentarily allowing ourselves to be wiped out, one in which the Arabs were clamoring (and a lot are still clamoring) to do.

So you preventivelly formed a state that will be run as minority wants and drove out those who didn't agree to it. .we didn’t form any state as you insiutate….the state was formed as a result or rather as a consequence of a war that the Arabs started in their effort to annihilate ALL of the Jews.

As for driving out, again Israel for the most part did NOT do that for it was their Arab brethren (as my Arab quotes clearly show) that encouraged them to flee and many did so on their encouragement.

And notwithstanding all that, Israel still accepted thousands and thousands of Arabs that clearly disagreed with Israel but they decided to become citizens and as such Israel accepted them. Cleary not an act of driving out people simply because they disagree with us.



Right of return is national suicide and Israels refusal of that is based soley on the prevention of allowing ourselves to vulentarliy commit national sucide and its on that and nothing else!!

Basically continue minority rule over majority. First of all, Israel outnumbers them so its majority rule over minority.

Secondly before Israel was forced to go back in a little over two years ago, it did not rule over any Palestinian and in fact had pulled out of every Palestinian town and city to where they had almost full autonomy over their own lives, and yet they still killed Israelis and all that showed that they fight for the whole Israel and as such Israel recognizes that accepting a full right of return is committing national suicide.



when you posted qoutes by him it was OK as well. but once I post quotes that run counter to your views than he becomes revisionist etc. first of all when did I use quotes from him in this thread??

He is a revisionist historian for a lot of reasons and not just because I disagree with him.

Anyways even his quotes don’t diminish the Arab ones which I see again you haven’t addressed.

As for others using benny morris, take it up with them. I am in a conversation with you and I can’t be held accountable for other people’s actions here nor do I automatically endorse what others say. I am speaking with you and I am not here to accept or automaticly endorse what others say to you.




No, obviouslly they didn't hear what was said in private. but they felt and saw what was done to them, yes which was to allow thousands and thousands of Arabs to beomce citizens to where there is now over a million Arabs, that clearly showed how the Jews were not expelling them even though they and their brethren had invaded in a effort to wipe out all of the Jews.



Btw ben gurion said a lot of other things in private that don’t exactly jive with what benny morris SAID.

But yes benny morris most be the all knowing truth and what he says went on in “privat” most be truth :roll:


So what you have is benny morris, a known revisionist historian,

Which, again,you psoted. again when did I post from him?



What we have is somebody publiclly call on Arabs to stay and privatlly tell his peopel to rive them out. And then, to eveerybody surprise, they are driven out. Gee, I wonder how that happeend. :roll: No the events bore out what I am saying..

I mean thousands and thousands of Arabs stayed and accepted Israeli citizenship…gees if the Jews were driving them out then why in the hell would it grant any Arab that chose to stay Israeli citizenship?? And in fact allowed thousands and thousand of them to become citizens

Secondly the Arabs fled etc….. and gees the events on the ground show that as well as my Arab quotes which again you haven’t even bothered to fully address or even recognize…hmm I wonder why :roll:


The Arabs on the other hand did expel the Jews and that is why there is less then .0000001 percent of Jews left.

Which was as wrong as Israel driving Arabs out. except for unlike what the Arabs did, Israel did not, that is why unlike the Arab percentage of Jews in their nations, in Israel there is a much larger (understatement) percentage of Arab citizens in Israel.

Also the Arabs invaded to wipe out all of Israel and yet still Israel for the most part did not expel them…what did the Jews do in those Arab nations to warrant them being expelled??

Also why the world (or yours as well) silence on this Jewish expulsion??..hell if you say both are wrong well surly you should hear some world condemnation of the Arabs as well….as of yet I haven’t heard any.



As for qoutes. You keep posting qoutes that arabs left by themselves, I keep posting qoutes they were driven out. I'd say that is countering your qoutes. No all you do is post benny morris quotes which he claims that was spoken in private and even those quotes aren’t solid in disproving events on the ground or even near the validity of actual quotes by numerous Arabs from that time that is of clear public record.

Another thing is that my woutes are from actually witnesses and perticpetns (the arabs themsevls) while yours are from benny morris, who cliams a few things but was not there nor did he witness what he writes about , unlike those arab quotes.

Lastly, why would those Arabs say they fled or that it was because of their Arab brethren announcements that most of the Arabs fled, if like you say they were expelled?? Why would the Arabs make up something like that?




You said it was small pressure. when did I say small pressure or use those words??? :roll: No I said. "Lastly I never denied that we didn’t have any part in it nor that no Israeli never talked about it (and as I said we don’t have a spotless record as well), for yes there was a general animosity after the Arabs invaded in their intention to kill every Jew, but for the most part, a lot of Israelis then were asking for them to stay and for the most part it was their Arab brethren that made them leave and your benny morris quotes do not diminish that truth or what those Arabs themselves said (as I brought down in great detail)."

Shalom :D

[AirZone]

I wonder to my self...im the only one who reads those stuff beside the writers ? rofl rofl rofl


guys.. please ! its intersting and all but so ****ing long.. :D

[TALOS]

Just spinning tires now peeps.
Aktarian, I believe if you look at the israeli quotes of Benny Morris you will see that they state he is anti jewish and revisionist from the beginning, and even so, some of his arguments actually supported the Israelis is all they were saying.