Did Israel Evict The Palestinians?Arab Sources Say NO

Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2012 10:38 pm
Subject: Did Israel Evict the Palestinians?
Date: 09/30/2000
Author: Dobrai55 <[email protected]>
<< previous ยท next >>
Here are some quotes from Arab sources on the issue:
Re: More trollery from RLA
Group: alt.revisionism Date: Sun, Sep 24, 2000, 2:11pm (PDT+7) From:
[email protected] (dltjxx)
<[email protected]> writes:

Are the Arabs afforded the same kind of accomodation ie housing, jobs,
education etc, as those who are Israeli nationals in Israel?
If they can afford it.
Did the allied forces, forcably turf the Arab families out of their
homes when land was err... "divided" in readiness for the formation of
The land was "err... divided" per UNR 181 for the formation of a Jewish
state AND an Arab state. The Arab state was not formed for the reasons
that: 1) No Arab political body could be found to proclaim an Arab
state, other than the pro-Nazi Arab Higher Committee headed by the Nazi
war criminal Amin al-Husseini; and Britain's ally, Jordan, according to
King Abdullah, believed that: 2) "Were an Arab state to be created in
Palestine, we would find ourselves surrounded by enemies." Some
comments from Arabs on the so-called "forcible turfing" of Arabs from
their homes:
"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 crash the 'Zionist gangs' very
quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."
George Hakim, bishop of the Galilee, Sada al Janub (Beirut) 16 Aug 48.
"The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of
the action of the Arab states in opposing the Jewish entity. The Arab
states agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the
solution of the problem they created." Emil Ghouri, Secretary of the
Arab Higher Committee, Daily Telegraph 6 Sept 48.
"Various factors influenced [the Arabs'] decision to seek 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." London Economist 2 Oct 48.
"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs,
encouraged by the boasting of an un-realistic Arab press and the
irresponsible utterances of some arab leaders that it could only be a
matter of 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, secretary of the Arab
League (London), The Arabs p 183.
"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 (Jordan), editorial 19 Feb 49.
"[Arab League Secretary General Azzam Pasha] 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 the 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,
Al-Hada (New York) 8 Jun 51.
"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." Khalid al-Azzam, Syrian
prime minister 1948-9, Memoirs, pp 386-87.
"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians, but
instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and leave their
homeland." Abu Mazen, PLO Executive Committee, Falastin al-Thawra, Mar
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,358 • Replies: 34

Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 05:37 pm
Makes no difference why Palestinians left their homes, under the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights and Geneva Convention IV, both of which Israel is signatory to, people cannot be prevented from returning to their homes once they've left them for ANY reason. This entire article is Zionist propaganda. Jewish historian Ilan Pappe thoroughly documents how Jewish forces massacred people in 33 of the 500 towns and villages they'd lived in for hundreds and thousands of years in his book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Israel is illegetimate, as also documented in Alan Hart's book, Zionism, The Real Enemy of the Jews, and in this article: http://www.countercurrents.org/hart050410.htm

David Evans
Former Sergeant, USMC
Member of Veterans For Peace
Israel-Palestine Working Group
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 09:49 pm
Let's see this universal declaration.

When did they try to return?The PLO charter refused to recognize Israel and declared it's intention to destroy Israel.How can they go back to a place they claim does not exist?Those Arabs who remained in Israel are now Israeli citizens with full citizenship rights, including delegates to the Knesset.In poll after poll, they have said they prefer living in Israel to living in any Palestinian state.

Your boy says Israel is "illegitimate"???I guess he's never seen this:


Read the whole thing. It grants the Arabs their own state in part of the area now known as Israel.They had an Arab state in the area, but never tried to do anything with it and, when it was invaded by Arab armies from Egypt, Jordan and Syria, they abandoned it.Israel accepted UNR 181 in toto.
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 09:50 pm
I happen to be a former officer in the US Navy and I was an enlisted electrician before I went to OCS.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 10:01 pm
The Universal Declaration of human rights can be seen here.

Joe, an important point to remember is that Palestinians are human beings. They have families and hopes and dreams. Most human beings be they American, or Palestinian or Israeli want to work, have a home and raise their families in peace. If Palestinians had the opportunity to return in peace, most of them would. However the problem is that Israel won't let them because once they did, they couldn't have a religious/ehnic democracy.

Also claiming that Israeli Arab citizens have "full citizenship rights" is an impossible stretch. Two Knesset members, Arab citizens of Israel were beaten recently, and there are laws that are aimed at limiting voting by Arab Israeli citizens.

The current prime minister of Israel has openly said that he sees Arab Israeli citizens as a "demographic bomb".
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 10:13 pm
People are beaten in the USA all the time. That does not remove their rights.
The PM is concerned that higher Arab birth rates will make Jews a minority in Israel. That has nothing to do with their rights under Israeli law.
Yes, they are humans. Nobody denies that. However, the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza have waged a continuous war of terrorism on Israel with rockets, mortars and suicide bombers.All sworn enemies are human.If they want gentle treatment from Israel, they must stop killing it's civilians.



Article 13 of HAMAS charter rejects any peaceful solution to the conflict.


As I told a friend of mine recently, the so-called "Middle east peace process" is an "obscure fantasy".The Pals want war and they will continue to wage war hoping to destroy Israel.HAMAS did not take power in Gaza by means of a military coup-they won it in an election.
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 07:34 am
People are beaten in the USA all the time. That does not remove their rights.

When people were beaten in the USA because of their ethnic background (and it wasn't that long ago) it was a violation of their rights. The US had to come to terms with this because you can't be a true democracy if you are denying rights to human beings in your country. This is what the American civil rights movement is about.

Israel has a problem. They want to be a Jewish State AND they want to be a Democracy. Unfortunately this isn't possible unless they decide to work out a deal with a credible Palestinian state. They are going to have to make a choice.

Israel is occupying territory where Palestinians and their descendents have been living for hundreds of years. These people have communities and houses and feel the same way about leaving the country of their ancestors that you would feel about being asked to leave the US (assuming you are American).

There are three options open to Israel.

1) Decide to be a true Democracy meaning everyone living in their land is equal and everyone has a vote. Of course true democracy is impossible if you are going to have a state based on a singular ethnicity. Most Israelis find true democracy, simply allowing everyone an equal vote, to be a very unacceptable solution.

2) Decide to work out a real two state solution that is agreeable to both parties. Of course this will mean Israel must give up land and work out a true compromise on Jerusalem. This would allow Israel to maintain an ethnically based "democracy" since their desired ethnic group would be ensured due to the gerrymandered demographics.

3) Decide to be undemocratic. Israel either keep an underclass with no rights (especially no voting rights) which will allow their ethnic group to maintain power. Or Israel can do ethnic cleansing to expel people from undesireable ethnic groups from the country. Of course this option is not acceptable to modern decent people.

The trick Israel is trying to do is to paint all Palestinians as less than human monster who don't deserve rights. This an old trick that has been used in many places who didn't want to do the difficult things it takes to have a democracy including the USA.

But it doesn't matter. Israel needs to make a choice about what kind of country they want to be.
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 08:40 am
At the moment Israel talks peace, but creates facts on the ground. The present regime really has no interest in doing anything else. The only country Israel is at all concerned about is America, and their powerful PR machine means their message is pretty much the only one that's heard.

The real aim is to delay peace talks for so long that any possible Palestinian state is completely unviable.
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 08:48 am
The Pals have NOT lived there for "hundreds of years".The migration of Arabs to the west bank and gaza did not happen until after the 1967 war.They moved themselves out of Israel in 1948 and made no attempt to return to the land they claim to be so attached to, even tho their rights to it were affirmed by the UN General Assembly in resolution 181.After 1948, they lived as transient refugees in various places such a Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt.Did you know that King Hussein kicked them out of Jordan because they tried to overthrow him?Look up the 1970 Jordanian Civil War.They responded to his rightful eviction by murdering one of his ministers.Is it any wonder that none of the monarchies in the Middle East will take them in???

Israel was established as a Jewish state, approved by the UN General Assembly.
There is no "choice" to make on that issue.The word "democracy" does not include suicide.It does not include giving up all your rights to someone who makes alot of noise, especially since they are terrorists.

See this crap?Even tho you have seen that the Pals are the aggressors and the terrorists who have broken their agreements over and over, you still give the
same blah speech dripping with sympathy for them and making demands of Israel.

I have advised the Israelis to follow the lead of the Soviets in this matter-do what you have to do to protect your country and your people and ignore the UN and the international community completely.
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 08:51 am
I already posted the HAMAS charter. Have you read it?Article 13 categorically rejects any peaceful solution.Israel are not the liars here, sonny.HAMAS is.
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 09:00 am
Hamas has offered a ceasefire. The IRA still have not dropped their commitment to a united Ireland. That is no different in the minds of Unionists to Hamas statements. If you want peace you make baby steps.

In July 2009, Khaled Meshal, Hamas's Damascus-based political bureau chief, said the organization was willing to cooperate with "a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders,"


I've not called you any derogatory names, and if you have to call me sonny you're not really showing a commitment to reasoned debate.
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 09:17 am
and what does he mean by 1967 borders?he means for Israel to give up all the land she won in a war in which she was attacked first.The West Bank and Gaza were part of that capture. They have no economic value at all, Israel keeps them as buffers against another attack on her from Egypt, Jordan or another Arab state.The answer to that suggestion is "No" in English and "Nyet" in Russian.

The IRA has not vowed to kill all the Unionists and British in Northern Ireland.
The two situations are not comparable.;the IRA does not attack the Brits every day with rockets and suicide bombs, killing as many civilians as they can.

The offer you mentioned came from someone not authorized to make it,so it means nothing.Until HAMAS revises it's charter and drops it's insistence on the destruction of israel, there will be no peace.As long as the Pals stage terrorist attacks on israeli civilians, there will be no peace talks.
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 09:22 am
There will be no peace talks as long as Israel continues making facts on the ground. The occupation is illegal under international law. The fact is the Palestinians are suffering under a brutal occupation. You can decide to look the other way if you want, but that is what is happening.
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 09:30 am
Show me that "international law", right here_____________________
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 09:34 am
The official term used by the United Nations Security Council to describe Israeli-occupied territories is "the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem", which is used, for example, in Resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979), 465 (1980) and 484. A conference of the parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, have also resolved that these territories are occupied and that the Fourth Geneva Convention provisions regarding occupied territories apply.

The international community has formally entrusted the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) with the role of guardian of international humanitarian law. That includes a watchdog function by which it takes direct action to encourage parties to armed conflict to comply with international humanitarian law. The head of the International Red Cross delegation to Israel and the Occupied Territories stated that the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions that constitute war crime.

Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 10:11 am
Really?The United Nations established an International Court of Justice to resolve internat. disputes;It's right here:


The Pals have lots of lawyers. Why have they not filed suit to evict Israel from the WB and Gaza?I know why.Because the Pals have no legal right to the land and therefore no standing to sue.Prior to 1967, the WB belonged to Jordan and Gaza belonged to Egypt.Israel has offered to give the land back, but both the Egyptians and Jordan refused.That refusal gives me hope. It tells me that not all the Moslem Arabs are stupid fanatics.The Egyptians and Jordan have seen what the Pals in WB and Gaza are like and they would prefer israel deal with them and their insane Muslim fanaticism.

In case you didn't know, resolutions of the UN General assembly are NOT binding.At various times, such as in Korea and Iraq and Serbia, the UN has
gotten it's member states to send troops to enforce it's decisions.
Yet, they have done no such thing in Gaza, Israel, or the west bank.They did send
US Marines to keep peace in Beirut, Lebanon in the 1980s, but, unfortunately, they were all killed by a terrorist bomb attack on their barracks for which Hezbollah has admitted responsibility.
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 10:18 am
You can redefine international law as much as you want. It doesn't change anything, the occupation of the West Bank is illegal under international law.
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 10:32 am
izzythepush wrote:
the West Bank is illegal under international law.

i've told people for years, stay away from the banks, use a credit union
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 10:33 am
I have not redefined anything.Laws come from 3 sources
(1)written statues
(2)court decisions
(3)international conventions

Show me something from one of those sources that proves your point.
HMMM! I believe I already asked you for that same info in a previous post.
Now you have 2 requests. Answer either one.
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 10:41 am
One of my uncles owned a pharmacy in Chicago beginning in the 1930s.
He was very oldfashioned and didn't trust banks or the government.
When he retired and moved to Florida, someone who was helping him move happened to look under his bed.My Uncle had kept there shoeboxes full of $100 bills.All told, it amounted to over $100,000.I wish I had a bed like that.ROTFL!

Related Topics

WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
  1. Forums
  2. » Did Israel Evict The Palestinians?Arab Sources Say NO
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/03/2023 at 03:35:10