What If Israel Had Never Been Created?

jespah wrote:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overview.asp

The Miller article is actually by someone else named Miller. Really, folks, please look at snopes before posting such things.

This makes it even more hilarious--guess the joke really is on you, Woiyo.

Quote:

As for what would have happened if Israel would never have been created, why, of course the world would be sunshinier and brighter, and fluffy bunnies would tie our shoes while singing bluebirds ate sunflower seeds from our outstretched hands and our pets would speak to us telepathically, all while the rest of the Middle East continued to attack each other in endlessly creative and horrifying ways.

I applaud the satire. Had there been no Israel, we'd still be filling our collective national panties to get our hands on the largest reserves of the highest grade petroleum in the world, and if the Muslims of the middle east didn't want to play, and were there no Saddam Hussein, we'd have been obliged to invent him.

Israel exists, it's a fact which cannot be escaped, and it has been an inescapable fact since 1919 (investigate the Paris Peace Conference and Palestine some time), nevermind 1948. That, however does not mean that everything Israel does is automatically right, nor that everything Arabs or Muslims (suprisingly for the right, not all Muslims are Arabs) do is automatically wrong. Whether from the reactionary right (Israel can do no wrong) or the radical left (Israel is the true Great Satan), the desire is to make oversimplistic and disingenuous statements which support an ideological position which doesn't care what the facts are. Simple stories for simple minds.

Larry Miller is a liar.

0 Replies

Set - You're such a goof!

LARRY MILLER wrote the article which printed DENNIS MILLERS comedy bit.

See the link (should have posted it originally)

http://www.betar.co.uk/articles/betar1068477052.php

You know, Miller is a popular name, sort of like Smith or Muhammad.

0 Replies

Didn't read the Snopes link which Jespah provided, did ya, Woiyo?

Snopes debunks the Dennis Miller "Brief Overview" lie.

0 Replies

OK. Now you're becoming an a-hole.

What the "EF" does this say?

"The Story of the Middle East

[/B]Larry Miller- Monday 10th Nov 2003

"A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you Really need.

Here we go:

The Palestinians want their own country.

There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians.

It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years.
Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern Invention. Before the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no "Palestinians" then, and the West Bank Was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians" then. As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the Palestinians," weeping for Their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation."

So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our Deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: "Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."

I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters." Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing. No, they don't.

They could 've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, Especially two years ago at Camp David. But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to Figure out some way to make a living. That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region Want: Israel.

They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course -- that's where The real fun is -- but mostly they want Israel.

Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it -- for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on G-d's Earth, and if you've ever been around G-d's Earth, you know that's really saying something.

It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about. The great history and culture of the Muslim Mideast. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, By the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.

Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five Million Jews.
Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a Pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, Everyone will be pals.

Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend Kevin Rooney made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the Numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it.

Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not. Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting. No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the Worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations in Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a Roomful of supermodels who've just had their drugs taken away.

However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of Losing moral weight.

We've already lost some. After September 11 our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the Countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we Did, and we tell them to show restraint.

If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and East of the Jordan.

----

Dennis Miller ia a Christian and a TV entertainer who has a Show called Dennis Miller Live on HBO.

You can read more about him on http://www.hbo.com/dml/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's COMEDY stupid!!! It's 3 "efing" years old!
Get the "ef" over yourself.

0 Replies

Whereas i have no doubt about who the @ssholes are in this thread.

It's only f*ckin' comedy for those who think it's funny to slur an entire ethnic group. By the way, Arabs are Semites, so your attitude and the snivelling attitude of the "humor" writer Larry Miller constitutes anti-semitism.

It's not funny, it's not comedy, it is hateful, it is racist, and i has nothing to do with Dennis Miller. Continuing to reproduced the hacked version of Larry Miller's racist screed doesn't change any of that. You didn't bother to read the text of Snopes' debunking of this story even though i transcribed it to this thread, did you?

*************************************************************

To restate my position, which no amount of righ wing bile will change:

Israel exists, it's a fact which cannot be escaped, and it has been an inescapable fact since 1919 (investigate the Paris Peace Conference and Palestine some time), nevermind 1948. That, however does not mean that everything Israel does is automatically right, nor that everything Arabs or Muslims (suprisingly for the right, not all Muslims are Arabs) do is automatically wrong. Whether from the reactionary right (Israel can do no wrong) or the radical left (Israel is the true Great Satan), the desire is to make oversimplistic and disingenuous statements which support an ideological position which doesn't care what the facts are. Simple stories for simple minds.

0 Replies

I don't get the "there are no Palestinians" argument. Who are all of those people who used to live in Israel but now live in crowded refugee camps and have no leadership and no state, them? What would you like to call them?

What does the goddammed name have to do with the fact that there are a whole lot of people who were misplaced by the creation of the state of Israel, and nobody in more than 50 years has figured out what to do about them.

Personally, I think Israel should continue to exist, but smaller. And that they should quit watering their ******* lawns until their neighbors have clean water. And that the people who remain displaced by the existence of the state should receive compensation for the land they lost. Regardless of right or wrong, it's not right to force that many people from their homes in the name of preserving a religious majority. I know, someone is going to tell me that they weren't forced, that all those people fled because they hated Jews or whatever. People fled war, just like everyone on this board would do if war came to our homes. When it was over, they should have been allowed to come back or been paid for their loss. It really is that simple.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I don't get the "there are no Palestinians" argument. Who are all of those people who used to live in Israel but now live in crowded refugee camps and have no leadership and no state, them? What would you like to call them?

Unfortunate pawns in an Arab-engineered "get us some sympathy" game.

Quote:

What does the goddammed name have to do with the fact that there are a whole lot of people who were misplaced by the creation of the state of Israel, and nobody in more than 50 years has figured out what to do about them.

Yeah - nobody - as in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Yemen, Qatar, the UAE ... etc etc etc. Its been nearly 60 years since the UN mandate which established the state of Israel. Component to the 1948 Arab attack on the fledgling state was the Arab call that Arabs living in the area mandated to Israel evacuate "for their own safety" - more or less in so many words, "get out of there for a few weeks so we can come in without endangering you, and when we've crushed the Zionizts, you can return and claim it all for your own". Voluntarilly, in anticipation of swift and certain defeat for the hated Zionists, some 420,000 or so Arabs did - thus the refugee camps began. Meanwhile, some 800,000 or more Jews were cast out of the Arab nations attacking Israel, most disposessed by their Arab ejectors of everything but the clothes on their backs, nearly all finding refuge in Israel. Note that following WWII, tens of Millions of displaced people were reabsorbed into the European and Asian societies from which they had been uprooted - the process taking a very few years, largely complete, in fact, by the time of Israel's establishment as a state.

Quote:

Personally, I think Israel should continue to exist, but smaller.

Israel already has been rendered "smaller" - repartioned - several times. The operational factor here is not the size of Israel but its very existence; the Arabs want it all. Initiatives to establish an Arab "Palestinian State" have been forwarded more than once, uniformly to be rejected by the Arabs on the basis of refusal to accept a Jewish state.

Quote:

And that they should quit watering their **** lawns until their neighbors have clean water.

Here you kinda sorta almost have a point - water rights issues are a major sticking point - a bone of contention not at all helped by the Israeli's pointing out the existing water distribution infrastructure - wells, desalinization plants, canals, riverine projects, irrigation systems - that doesn't change the fact the Israelis consume a disproportionate amount of the available water, that's just to say they by and large all but exclusively developed the means by which they do so - and by which there is any development whatsoever of water access and distribution in the area, the Arabs for whatever reason not having seen fit to independently engage the issue.

Quote:

And that the people who remain displaced by the existence of the state should receive compensation for the land they lost. Regardless of right or wrong, it's not right to force that many people from their homes in the name of preserving a religious majority. I know, someone is going to tell me that they weren't forced, that all those people fled because they hated Jews or whatever. People fled war, just like everyone on this board would do if war came to our homes. When it was over, they should have been allowed to come back or been paid for their loss. It really is that simple.

As pointed out, Israel did not force the Arabs to leave in 1948, the Arabs, these "Victims of Israeli Aggression" - a very small percentage of which were landowners, BTW, but that's another issue entirely - chose to leave in order that the aggression of their Arab brethren thus might more conveniently be able to crush the Zionists and render unto the Arabs all that there was to be had. Their Arab brethren for nearly 60 years have not seen fit to remedy the situation they brought about, preferring instead to maintain it that it might be exploited to their political advantage.

Quote:

The world's collective amnesia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 19, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Yasser Arafat may have lost some of his personal political clout of late, but the political movement he began - demanding justice for Palestinian Arabs expelled from their homes in 1948 - remains as strong as ever.

There's just one problem. There's not the slightest historical evidence to suggest Arabs were expelled in significant numbers - certainly not by Jews.

I know this statement is going to be met with gasps, guffaws and gnashing of teeth. Nevertheless, let me defend it, not with my own words, not with the words of Jews and Israelis, but with the words of Arabs closer to the time of the events.

"The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agree upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."
- Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph Sept. 6, 1948.

"The Arab state which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees."
- The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, Feb. 19, 1949.

"Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor nor conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honor? The Arab states, and Lebanon amongst them, did it."
- The Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, Aug. 19, 1951.

"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
- The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.

"For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy."
- The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953.

I could go on and on and on with this forgotten - or deliberately obscured - history. But you get the point. There was no Jewish conspiracy to chase Arabs out of their homes in 1948. It never happened. There are, instead, plenty of historical records showing the Jews pleading with their Arab neighbors to stay and live in peace and harmony. Yet, despite the clear, unambiguous words of the Arab observers at the time, history has been successfully rewritten to turn the Jews into the bad guys.

The truth is that 68 percent of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 - perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them - never saw an Israeli soldier.

Even more importantly, the revised history has given the guilty a free ride. The Arab states that initiated the hostilities have never accepted responsibility - despite their enormous wealth and their ability to assimilate tens of millions of refugees in their largely under-populated nations. And other states have failed to hold them accountable.

It's bad enough the Arab states created a small nation of refugees by their actions. It's worse that they have successfully blamed that international crime on the Jews.

Today, of course, this cruel charade continues. The suffering of millions of Arabs is perpetuated only for political purposes by the Arab states. They are merely pawns in the war to destroy Israel.

There were some 100 million refugees around the world following World War II. The Palestinian Arab group is the only one in the world not absorbed or integrated into their own people's lands. Since then, millions of Jewish refugees from around the world have been absorbed in the tiny nation of Israel.

It makes no sense to expect that same tiny Jewish state to solve a refugee crisis it did not create.

0 Replies

the Big Bird wrote:

Israel already has been rendered "smaller" - repartioned - several times. The operational factor here is not the size of Israel but its very existence; the Arabs want it all. Initiatives to establish an Arab "Palestinian State" have been forwarded more than once, uniformly to be rejected by the Arabs on the basis of refusal to accept a Jewish state.

However, this ignores that the modern day state of Israel occupies more territory than was granted to it by the 1948 General Assembly Resolution 181, which i have linked and quoted in other threads at this site many times. More imporatantly, it ignores that the Zionists (who were calling themselves that at the time) who petitioned the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, when the Palestine-Transjordan mandate was created, were calling for "historical boundaries," which stretched from just south of Beirut in the north to just west of Amman and Damascus in the east and including Gaza and much of the Sanai. The territory currently occupied by Israel continues to include land not granted to them in 1948, which continues to provide a pretext for Arab propaganda. In sum, the Zionists, who continue to exist (and the evidence is everywhere on line, including the site which Woiyo earlier linked), are often in simple pragmatic terms one of Israel's biggest liabilities, vis-a-vis the continued ability of Arab propagandists to portray Israel as an imperialistic state. There is currently talk among Israelis about re-occupying portions of the West Bank to start new settlements.

Below is the territory which Zionists attempted to claim at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. The source is the "Mid-East-web," a site maintained by Palestinians, Israeli Jews and other Jews of the Diaspora and "Gentiles." The page from which it was taken, and which i link here includes the "Statement of the Zionist Organization Regarding Palestine Presented to the Paris Peace Converence."

http://www.mideastweb.org/map_zionistpal.gif

There remain many Zionists in the world, and including, of course, in Israel, who assert the right of Jews to "historic" territory. Such an attitude does no favors to either the Palestinians or the Israelis, and continues to fuel the casus belli exploited by Arab rabble-rousers.

It is also more than a little disingenuous to say, as the Big Bird's linked op/ed piece does, that Israel did not create the refugee problem. There is blame enough and more to go around, and it is another form of amnesia not to recognize that Israel did not keep its engagements for an economic and customs union as mandated in General Assembly Resolution 181. Even if one points to Arab aggression--the Palestinians are back within the borders of the former Palestine now, and Israel continues to drag its collective heels on implementing that nearly 60 year-old mandate.

0 Replies

Nota Bene: I know that "Mid-East-web" is a pro-Palestinian organization, before the Big Bird or someone else runs in here to object. However, i have vetted the documents they post, and only use those for which i consider the provenance to be accurate.

******************************************

Freeduck, the modern Palestinians are descended from Semitic people who once roamed the region as semi-nomads, they are, essentially descended from Bedouin who were in the region at the same time as the Jews. The reason people advance the "there are no Palestinians" argument is because of a political adherence to Zionist propaganda underpinning the "historical right" agument, even if many of the people who advance it are not themselves conscious of espousing Zionist propaganda.

McG asked if Herodotus mentioned Israel. He did not, as far as i know, and for good reason. When, in the fifth century BCE, Herodotus personally traveled in that region (it is very near his birthplace in Halicarnassus), it was a part of the Persian Empire. There was no reason for him to have taken notice of a "nation" which was not recognized by anyone except tribal Jews who lived there, and who were by no means alone in the region, or particularly important in the region.

Judas Maccabeus (that's the Latin form of what may be transliterated into English as Yehudah HaMakabi--Judah the Hammer) was a theretofore obscure priest at the time that Antiochus of the Seleucid Empire (a Greco-Macedonian "empire"--a kingom, really--built upon part of the ruins of the Persian Empire conquered by Alexander) decided to "Hellenize" (to make "Greek") the Jews. He (Judas M) lead a successful revolt which overthrew "Persian" rule--as the modern Jews have it, which ignores that the Seleucids were actually Greco-Macedonian. The Macabees' revolt began in 175 BCE, and rather quickly succeeded in obtaining independence and a tenuous hegemony in Palestine for the Jews. This was maintained until Pompey the Great conquered Syria for Rome (64 BCE), defeating Antiochus VIII Asiaticus, and making Syria a Roman province. In the following year, Pompey marched into Palestine, occupied Judeah, entered Jerusalem, and entered the "Holy of Holies" in the Temple there. His point was to demonstrate Roman dominance (point taken) and to demonstrate to the Jews that their god was a false god (point not conceded). The Jews remained reluctant conquered members of the Roman Empire, and there was an on-again, off-again rebellious movement among Jews, usually centered around opposition to taxation, which smouldered until about 66 CE, when it broke into full-scale armed rebellion. This was in the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero, and was only fitfully dealt with by the Romans. In 69 CE, Nero died, and was succeeded by three "emperors," Otho and Galba who relied upon the swords of their legionaries, and Vitellius, an rich member of the Senatorial order who bribed the Praetorian Guard to proclaim him emperor. All contenders, including the hapless Vitellius, were put out of business by Vespasian, the first of the Flavian emperors, who, among other measures, sent his son Titus (who would succeed him to the imperial dignity) to put down the revolt in Judea. He was having no rebellion in the Empire, and was busy in many places to consolidate his rule. Titus took Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple in 70 CE, and the Jews were intentionally dispersed in what has become known as the Jewish Disaspora. (It's not the only diaspora in the world's history, although one would not know that in reading some Jewish writers.)

One may as well blame the Romans for the current situation as to blame anyone else. The people from whom the Palestinians are descended were, in part, on the scene in 70 CE, but weren't dispersed because they hadn't rebelled. The "historical right" argument can as well be applied to the Palestinians as to anyone else. Even those who assert that the Palestinians are descended from Arab invaders of the 7th century CE (which is only marginally true) ignore that the Palestinians continue to have as valid an "historical right" to territory in Palestine as do modern Jews.

0 Replies

A final note to my diatribe. The word Zionist was not always a political "dirty word." It was certainly not taken by Europeans and Americans (who were not already anti-semitic) to be such in 1919.

The Osmanli Turkish Empire collapsed as a result of the Great War. The Allies already had plans to carve up the Middle East before the war ended. The Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 was an initial plan to carve up the remains of that empire. During the war, about the only consistencly successful Turkish commander was Mustapha Kemal. He was the regimental commander who, on his own initiative, attacked the French, British and Australian forces landed in Gallipoli in 1915. He was the man who, rising through the ranks of the officer corps, made Gallipoli a living Hell for the French and the Anzacs (Australian and New Zealand troops). After the war, he was actually politically threatened by the weak and indecisive Turkish aministration. The French unwisely sponsored a Greek invasion of Turkey, which gave Kemal the opportunity to rise to supreme power, as the only effective commander to oppose the Greco-French expedition, which had problems at home with the jealous Italians, who wanted a piece of the pie themselves (they didn't get it). Kemal went on to create the modern state of Turkey, and was given (or took) the honorific "Attaturk," meaning "Father of the Turks."

This meant that the Sykes-Picot agreement could not be implemented, and an aging Arthur Balfour abetted by a vigorous Winston Churchill were given the task of dividing the territory again, with Clemenceau insisting on the Lebanon and Syria, but leaving the rest pretty much up to Balfour (which meant, effectively, Churchill). They created the modern map of the Middle East. Churchill had been First Lord of the Admiralty in the years before the Great War, and he and Jackie Fisher had created the modern Royal Navy with its "dreadnoughts" reliant upon petroleum fuel oil-fired steam turbine engines rather than coal-fired reciprocating steam engines. In engineering terms, this was a wise decision. In political terms, it would eventually spell disaster. Churchill carved Mosul out of the former territory promised to the French, added it to Baghdad and Basra and created Iraq--with what we now know are the second largest proven reserves of "light sweet crude," the higest grade petroleum available. The largest reserves are in Saudi Arabia, created with the connivance of the Ibn Saud clan, whose 18th century marriage to the Wahabbi clan would one day create other problems for us (Osama bin Laden is a Saudi member of the Wahabbi sect).

Long before this, Zionists had looked around for a homeland for European Jews. The great African "explorer" and British imperialist Cecil Rhodes (for whom Rhodesia was named--what is now Zimbabwe) once offered them Uganda. Don't ask me why he thought it was his to give away, but the Jews of Europe weren't that stupid, and they politely declined. By the time of the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, Zionists had been settling Jews in a slow trickle in Palestine for more than 50 years. They were not only not despised as Zionists, many European leaders were eager to give them a "homeland," not least because of a centuries old common anti-semitism in Europe--they probably thought they could get rid of those whom they secretly despised. So, when the Zionist Organization addressed the Paris Peace Conference, which everyone in Europe and the United States was depending upon to solve the world's problems, and to make the Great War "the war to end all wars," it seemed a happy accident to them that they were now able to dispose of former Turkish territory to their own advantage and in compliance with the wishes of the Zionists. Jews continued to go to Palestine, albeit in small numbers. After all, most of them thought of themselves as Germans, or French, or Austrians--rather than Jews who were outsiders in the lands of their respective births. While carving up the Middle East to give England hegemony over all of the oil-producing states, Balfour and Churchill created the Palestine and the Transjordan mandates, which were managed together by the English (the Transjordan was supposed to have been French, but they bowed out).

But after 1945, they became somewhat of a "flood." There is a Jewish web site which i recently visisted (the Jewish Virtual Library) which contends that at least a quarter of a million European Jews were settled in Palestine between 1945 and 1948. It is only after 1945 that Zionist came to be viewed as a "dirty word."

0 Replies

FreeDuck, "Personally, I think Israel should continue to exist, but smaller. And that they should quit watering their **** lawns until their neighbors have clean water." Lots people agree with that.

0 Replies

Timber, I'm happy to let you and Setanta battle about history. I don't personally give a **** whose responsibility you think it is to solve the palestinian problem. The point is that it isn't solved. And right or wrong, the problem is caused by the establishment of the state of Israel inside the borders it claims. Even if some palestinian leader had simultaneously declared a Palestinian state when Israel did, I think all events would have happened as they did. The displaced people, collectively, are not to blame for their situation. These events are beyond their control. As long as this problem is not addressed there will continue to not be peace in the middle east. As right as you think you are, feeling justified isn't going to fix this problem.

I'm not blaming "Israeli aggression" or any other straw concept you wish to lay at my feet. Simply speaking, this is a problem that can be solved as soon as we stop blaming people. I'm not blaming Israeli's, I want them to address this problem so that there can be peace in the middle east. And as long as they are significantly influenced by zionists this won't happen.

0 Replies

What people mean when they say 'there are no Palestinians' is that, at the time Israel was declared a state in 1948, there was 'no Palestinian state'. The area that is now called Israel was parts of Transjordan, Egypt, etc, etc, whatever, whatever. There was not, at that time, a state or country called Palestine.

Whether the people called themselves Palestinians before that...I seriously doubt it. But I could be wrong, I wasn't there. And I'm sure someone can find a 'website' that says they did.

I say, try and separate yourself from the situation; pretend your from another planet. (only a stones throw for some) Look at the pictures; don't listen to any words for fear of propaganda or indoctrination. Just look at the pictures. Who is filled with hate? Who drags bodies through the streets; hangs and burns them? Who dresses 3 year olds up in suicide belts?

Let's say Israel is evil. Ok. You go to war against 5 countries at once, countries who's objective is to "wipe you off the face of the earth. Not for resources or land of any kind. Their purpose is just to annihilate you. You kick their ass in this war, and in the process expand your borders... Screw ever giving that land back! We don't plan on giving back Texas where I live. (Unless you consider immigratino that is)

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
And that the people who remain displaced by the existence of the state should receive compensation for the land they lost. Regardless of right or wrong, it's not right to force that many people from their homes in the name of preserving a religious majority. I know, someone is going to tell me that they weren't forced, that all those people fled because they hated Jews or whatever. People fled war, just like everyone on this board would do if war came to our homes. When it was over, they should have been allowed to come back or been paid for their loss. It really is that simple.

As pointed out, Israel did not force the Arabs to leave in 1948, the Arabs, these "Victims of Israeli Aggression" - a very small percentage of which were landowners, BTW, but that's another issue entirely - chose to leave in order that the aggression of their Arab brethren thus might more conveniently be able to crush the Zionists and render unto the Arabs all that there was to be had. Their Arab brethren for nearly 60 years have not seen fit to remedy the situation they brought about, preferring instead to maintain it that it might be exploited to their political advantage.

The assertion that "Israel did not force the Arabs to leave in 1948," is not true. While some of them did flee on the admonition of the Arab Higher Committee and the intermediate level Palestinian leadership to remove children, women and the elderly from the villages to avoid the violence, some also fled because of the ethnic cleansing that the Haganah (which became the Israel Defense Force after Israel's declaration of independence) was perpetrating in the Arab villages that fell under Zionist control.

In an interview with Ha'aretz' Ari Shavit in September of 2004 Israeli historian Benny Morris explains how "in the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves. (Ari Shavit, Ha'aretz, "Survival of the fittest" 09/01/2004)

Ben Gurion issued the order for Operation Dani [July 1948], the order for ethnic-cleansing. The order for ethnic cleansing came from the highest leadership of the Zionist organization, and it was carried out by the Zionist organization's military force.

Also, there was an expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Ytzhak Rabin immediately after Ben-Gurion's visit to the headquarters of Operation Dani in July of 1948. "From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created."

There were twenty-four small scale massacres perpetrated by the Israeli forces in 1948. Morris says, "in some cases four or five people were executed, in others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot. There are cases such as the village of Dawayima [in the Hebron region], in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing and killed anything that moved.

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

"That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres."

There was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order in Operation Hiram. "One of the revelations in the book [The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, 2004] is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth."

0 Replies

chiso wrote:

What people mean when they say 'there are no Palestinians' is that, at the time Israel was declared a state in 1948, there was 'no Palestinian state'. The area that is now called Israel was parts of Transjordan, Egypt, etc, etc, whatever, whatever. There was not, at that time, a state or country called Palestine.

Understood. But there were a goyish people living there before the arrival of the European Zionists. We now, after events in history have transpired, refer collectively to these peoples and their descendants as Palestinians.

Quote:

I say, try and separate yourself from the situation; pretend your from another planet. (only a stones throw for some) Look at the pictures; don't listen to any words for fear of propaganda or indoctrination. Just look at the pictures. Who is filled with hate? Who drags bodies through the streets; hangs and burns them? Who dresses 3 year olds up in suicide belts?

I'd ask, "Why are they filled with hate? And, "why are they doing that?"

Quote:

Let's say Israel is evil. Ok. You go to war against 5 countries at once, countries who's objective is to "wipe you off the face of the earth. Not for resources or land of any kind. Their purpose is just to annihilate you. You kick their ass in this war, and in the process expand your borders... Screw ever giving that land back! We don't plan on giving back Texas where I live. (Unless you consider immigratino that is)

The purpose that those Arab countries waged war against the Zionists was to prevent the partition of Palestine, pure and simple.

Because the Zionists won the war doesn't give them the right to discriminate against the Arab Israelis, and oppress the Palestinians. We living in Texas doesn't give us the right to discriminate against, and oppress the peoples that were living here before the arrogation of Texas.

0 Replies

What if Israel had never been created?

There would be no Israel/Palestine Conflict.

0 Replies

This Benny Morris has no credibility because he has contradicted himself, and/or changed his story, too many times. I won't spend the time to copy and paste, but it's not hard to find stories, with references, that completely disagree with the version you posted above.

No I don't ask why they are filled with hate and why they teach 'outright racism in school textbooks to their children'. People love to scream 'racism' all the time, especially people on the left. These coutries preach 'racism' in pure, simple language, simple enough for 3 year olds to understand. "Jews are pigs and monkeys and they need to be destroyed."

And I don't ask my children why they're throwing a fit like a little brat. FIRST, we get through the bratty fit they're throwing. THEN, we talk about it.

0 Replies

chiso wrote:

This Benny Morris has no credibility because he has contradicted himself, and/or changed his story, too many times. I won't spend the time to copy and paste, but it's not hard to find stories, with references, that completely disagree with the version you posted above.

Benny Morris isn't the only Israeli historian to have written about the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Zionists during the '48 war. But I'm sure you can find dectractors against them as well.

Quote:

No I don't ask why they are filled with hate and why they teach 'outright racism in school textbooks to their children'. People love to scream 'racism' all the time, especially people on the left. These coutries preach 'racism' in pure, simple language, simple enough for 3 year olds to understand. "Jews are pigs and monkeys and they need to be destroyed."

The hatred goes both ways.

Quote:

And I don't ask my children why they're throwing a fit like a little brat. FIRST, we get through the bratty fit they're throwing. THEN, we talk about it.

One thing is the issue of your bratty children, another thing is the issue of the subjugated and oppressed people of Palestine.

0 Replies

Stubborn, fiery boys they are. Two of them are past that stage, but the two year old needs some work. More language skills mainly.

Yeah, Benny Morris isn't the only "Revisionist Historian". He and the other "New Historians" can't even agree on this "Revised History" they're writing (revising) 40 to 60 years later.

Quote:

Quote:
No I don't ask why they are filled with hate and why they teach 'outright racism in school textbooks to their children'. People love to scream 'racism' all the time, especially people on the left. These coutries preach 'racism' in pure, simple language, simple enough for 3 year olds to understand. "Jews are pigs and monkeys and they need to be destroyed."

The hatred goes both ways.

We're talking "State Sponsored". Please provide an example.

0 Replies

...of state sponsored racism.

0 Replies

What If Israel Had Never Been Created?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know