Israel's 10 year racist law anniversary

[Rue]

The Jews willingly chose to live with the neighbors they currently have the moment Israel was created.

Are you suggesting the "Jews" woke up and said, say I know let's go live next door to people who hate us and want to wipe us out?

Are you suggesting the "Jews" intended to move next door to terrorists?

Lol.

[Rue]

There was a choice, but the 'ancient historical' ties to the area were part of the reason the Jews picked to live.

I did not have a choice of where I was born, but I do have a choice of where I want to live.

Therein lies your lack of understanding of the history of many conflicts Ghost not just this one.

Jews fled to Israel from the holocaust and from a world (Europe) that stole them of their property, wiped out 6 million of them, and left them NO CHOICE but to go to Israel. where were you when the UN turned their back on the surviving Jews and Elenor Roosevelt single handedly had to take on the world on behalf of them finding refuse for them?

The Jews that fled to Israel from the Arab League nations were given NO CHOICE either.

Israel was the only place to take in these Jews other than to the US if they had families in the US. Jews were not allowed in Canada.

If andwhen Jews got into any other country they had to PAY big time. Argentina, Mexico and at one point pre communist Cuba took in Jews if you had big money.

To be ignorant of this fact speaks to a major issue I have with many ike you who make no effort to find out why Jews went BACK to Israel or for that matter what creates refugees or causes people to flee and seek their own destiny precisely because when faced with NO CHOICE they then take a stand to survive.

No "Abe the Jew" did not wake up one morning and say, "oy honey, let's move to a tiny desert full of malaria, mosquitoes and people that hate us ...what a wonderful idea..."

Give that ridiculous conceptualization of Jews a rest.

Jews like the Palestinians who find themselves without a nation today, did not choose their present situations. Neither did.

History has shown us over and over that situations beyond the control of individuals conspire to cause them to flee or be caught up in wars or other catastrophes beyond their control which causes them to flee or move.

People who flee as Jews did- did not do so by free choice. That is nonsensical. Some people choose to move others do not.

Please do not suggest the Jews of Israel started their country just because they felt like it. It was a direct response to preventing their extermination by not just Europeans but by Arab nations.

It was a direct result of having NO CHOICE but to start their own country. Israel had no choice when it created itself.

McKenzie King turned back a boat load of Jews to Nazi Germany who were then gassed to death during the war. He openly called them and Jews vermin. Please do not act like Jews were free to go anywhere. Rubbish. The countries they did get into like Agentina and Mexico required paying big bucks to officials.

Only the US was generous in taking in Jews during and leading up to the WW2. Raoul Wallenberg and a diplomat in China both saved Jews, but the majority could go nowhere and were trapped in Europe where they died shipped from all over Europe in trains to their death. Please do not act like they had a choice during or after WW2.

Please do not have the audacity to suggest when the Arab League of nations expelled more Jews from their countries then alleged Palestinians displaced by Israel, Jews had a choice where to go.

Some Jews were lucky to have families in the US where they could go to. The vast majority did not.

In the history of immigration of Jews with the exception of the US no country took them in willingly. That is a fact not an opinion.

Holland did offer after WW2 but for understandable reasons most Jews would not return to anywhere in Europe after what happened. Holland knew why and Germany knew why and both assisted the movement of refugees to Israel.

It was Britain that shot at them when they tried to get into Israel, ironically the same nation that fought with them against Hitler.

Where were you when the UN turned its back on Israel leaving Elenor Roosevelt alone taking on the UN and US State Departments demanding they both acknowledge surviving Jews?

Where were you when the entire world turned its back on Jews as the Arab League started a war to kill them all in then Palestine? Free choice? Right.

The blood of Jews comes not from choice but drom adversity-from the decision to say never again-we did not choose world rejection but we would not embrace it either.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Rue

[GostHacked]

Are you suggesting the "Jews" woke up and said, say I know let's go live next door to people who hate us and want to wipe us out?

Are you suggesting the "Jews" intended to move next door to terrorists?

Lol.

No matter the intention, that was the result. I believe the Jews were offered land in other areas, but was refused because it was not where they wanted the new Israel to be. Ancient ties right?

[GostHacked]

Therein lies your lack of understanding of the history of many conflicts Ghost not just this one.

Jews fled to Israel from the holocaust and from a world (Europe) that stole them of their property, wiped out 6 million of them, and left them NO CHOICE but to go to Israel. where were you when the UN turned their back on the surviving Jews and Elenor Roosevelt single handedly had to take on the world on behalf of them finding refuse for them?

So stealing land from someone in the Middle East is the correct action because land was stolen from the Jews in Europe?

[DogOnPorch]

No matter the intention, that was the result. I believe the Jews were offered land in other areas, but was refused because it was not where they wanted the new Israel to be. Ancient ties right?

Where were 'Jews offered land', again? Uganda I'm guessing. Yeah...a problem there, too. Lions...lol. Plus malaria and assorted other jungle issues that would stop most modern travelers. Not to mention it actually WAS somebody else's land.

Edited July 30, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

So stealing land from someone in the Middle East is the correct action because land was stolen from the Jews in Europe?

Was it, in fact, stolen? I thought much of the land was actually purchased.

[Rue]

No matter the intention, that was the result. I believe the Jews were offered land in other areas, but was refused because it was not where they wanted the new Israel to be. Ancient ties right?

Lol if you are referring to Churchill suggesting Jews move to Uganda it was not Churchill's to offer and when the Jones propoganda site cackles how colonial and racist Jews are remember Jews did not go to Uganda precisely because they were not interested in occupying a land the British felt Britain could own and sell-they want back to Israel precisely because they were indigenous to Israel and would not be going somewhere as a colonial occupier but as people returning to their homeland.

Here is the point. Zionism came about not as a religious movement but as a political one by atheist Jews fed up with constant massacres, pogroms and the such. Zionism is a reaction to not having a choice-to being a second or third class inferior in any nation they lived in and then choosing to resist extinction that way. Its not a choice. Its a series of historic events and then Jews saying-we are not willing to be victims any more. In one sense they/we made a choice to no longer be passive victims yes, on the other hand the choice of Israel, no we

did not flee there based on free choice. It was an existential last stand.

I have always been one to argue had there been no anti-semitism, there would be no Israel and the need for Israel came out of resisting

being constant victims. I myself doubt Israel would exist today if Christianity and Islam did not have entrenched in their belief systems the beliefs they do about Jews and the way they have depicted Jews as evil or cursed people.

In the modern world in a nation of tolerance like Canada I am a perfect example of a Jew who chooses freely and proudly to be Canadian. I did not choose to live here, I was born here, but I could like many have moved to the US or Israel or somewhere else.

I have choices my ancestors or even parents never had. You can say I have a choice yes. On that you will get no arguement. I do. I am friggin lucky that way and that is why I choose Canadian first and foremost. It is everything my ancestors dreamed of.

If I had not been born in Canada but found myself in an Arab nation or a European nation up to and during WW2 I doubt I would have had a choice. Fate would have imposed its ugly head on me.

That is what I meant. I write what I say with lots of compassion. When I am reading it back it sounds pompous. I am jsut being compassionate about the fact that not all of us have choices. You know that. Many Canadians fleed war torn countries.

I am glad Canada gives me the right to have choices. I will tell you that. I don't have to walk down the street worried about getting shot, bombed, etc.

That's all. I know you know what I mean. We are not really disagreeing. I am just saying its not fair to say Israelis or Palestinians for that matter chose their situations. Most of them find themselves born into it and feeling powerless to change it.

In fact I think we all need to believe and fight for the right to choose our destiny so the very same belief that supports the right to Jews to have that right (me) believes the same for Palestinians of today. I am like many Zionists who believe Palestinians have a right to a state and the obstacle is extremism, whether it be terrorism or extremists of either side of the coin who use religion or ideology to refuse compromise.

I am naive but I still applaud what Kerry is trying to do and I think netanyahu's decision to bring in Tzipi Levni who is a friend of the US Vice President Netanyahu insulted as well as Kerry was a deliberate strategy to say-everyone knows Netanyahu is pro US Republican and does not like Obama's version of politics but he is willing to have other Israelis who do believe in the Kerry Democrat approach a chance to be part of the negotiations. Netanyahu is not afraid to put his foes right next to him at a bargaining table and be blunt with them.

It was a damn smart move bringing in Tzipi Levni to placate her constituents and Zionists like me who are more moderate than he on

how to deal with the West Bank. Netanyahu knows in Israel you must sit with your foes not hide from them.

The problem is Mr. Abbas can not do the same. He cant' go back to Fatah Hawks and say, look I am talking to Israel. They want him dead for that. So does Hamas. So who does he recruit to support any peace compromises on his side?

Does anyone really believe he has any power to impose a settlement? I do not. I think as long as Hamas and Fatah Hawks remain armed, and want Israel destroyed nothing changes. I think until terrorists are disarmed just like the UK demanded of the IRA before peace talks, nothing will change.

[GostHacked]

Was it, in fact, stolen? I thought much of the land was actually purchased.

Purchased from who?

[DogOnPorch]

Purchased from who?

The owners of said land.

[DogOnPorch]

Rue...as well...if the Zionist movement said 'yes' to such an offer as Uganda as a refuge, it was agreed that this would actually hinder their goal of establishing a state in the former Ottoman Empire.

"You guys already have a state..."

...being the body of the issue.

[GostHacked]

The owners of said land.

I get that .. but .. who? Who sold them the land?

[DogOnPorch]

I get that .. but .. who? Who sold them the land?

The owners...once again...the same way you'd buy property. And because they were Jews, the Arabs, Turks (et al) who sold them swampland and desert charged over $1000 an acre in 1930 dollars when an acre in Iowa was going for $100. As far as the owners were concerned, the land sold was useless for agriculture...corn in particular. So they might as well cash in. When the large tracts of swamp and desert were all purchased, the Jewish investors/immigrants moved to purchasing individual plots in the region from locals willing to sell. It was the Ottoman Land Code of 1858 which changed the game...allowing individuals to own land in the Empire rather than just be tenants to the Sultan. Together, some half a billion dollars was spent in land purchases before 1948.

[GostHacked]

The owners...once again...the same way you'd buy property. And because they were Jews, the Arabs, Turks (et al) who sold them swampland and desert charged over $1000 an acre in 1930 dollars when an acre in Iowa was going for $100. As far as the owners were concerned, the land sold was useless for agriculture...corn in particular. So they might as well cash in. When the large tracts of swamp and desert were all purchased, the Jewish investors/immigrants moved to purchasing individual plots in the region from locals willing to sell. It was the Ottoman Land Code of 1858 which changed the game...allowing individuals to own land in the Empire rather than just be tenants to the Sultan. Together, some half a billion dollars was spent in land purchases before 1948.

That's a much better answer than just 'they sold it'. Thank you.

[DogOnPorch]

That's a much better answer than just 'they sold it'. Thank you.

No problem...I thought you knew. Anyways, now you can give the stolen land thing a rest. You might be interested to know that the Mufti...yes him...was doing the very same thing. Buying land.

[DogOnPorch]

Plus...a stickler. If you owned land in the Ottoman Empire, you had to serve in the Ottoman Army. Not to mention high property taxes. This kept many individuals...Arabs in particular...from buying land.

Edited July 30, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

No problem...I thought you knew. Anyways, now you can give the stolen land thing a rest. You might be interested to know that the Mufti...yes him...was doing the very same thing. Buying land.

I am not saying I accept that answer, just simply that it is better than what your original statement was.

[DogOnPorch]

I am not saying I accept that answer, just simply that it is better than what your original statement was.

OK...what's your version of events?

[GostHacked]

OK...what's your version of events?

What is to say I have a version of events. I was just looking for clarification on your stance. I did not want to twist or misconstrued your point so I simply asked for clarification.

[DogOnPorch]

What is to say I have a version of events. I was just looking for clarification on your stance. I did not want to twist or misconstrued your point so I simply asked for clarification.

Your version clearly involves theft of land rather than purchase as stated in your post. But, since I just showed you your error, you need not repeat it.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22783-israels-10-year-racist-law-anniversary/?p=912744

You: So stealing land from someone in the Middle East is the correct action because land was stolen from the Jews in Europe?

Edited July 30, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

Your version clearly involves theft of land rather than purchase as stated in your post. But, since I just showed you your error, you need not repeat it.

Actually I formed it as a question in which you replied. I thank you for that.

[DogOnPorch]

Actually I formed it as a question in which you replied. I thank you for that.

Right.......

:lol:

[Rue]

Rue...as well...if the Zionist movement said 'yes' to such an offer as Uganda as a refuge, it was agreed that this would actually hinder their goal of establishing a state in the former Ottoman Empire.

"You guys already have a state..."

...being the body of the issue.

Yes to the above and all other posts by you. Well stated.

[Bonam]

What is to say I have a version of events. I was just looking for clarification on your stance.

It's not a "stance". It is a claim about a fact. Either the fact is true, in which case you should accept said fact and move on, or if the fact is false you should present evidence to demonstrate its falsehood. Factual claims are not subject to whims and stances, they are either true or they are not.

[jbg]

It's called staying on topic. As per forum rules. We have several Syria threads.

This is on topic in the sense that the moral lack of equivalence is galling.

Not all states in the world have to be perfectly separated between church (or synagogue) and state. Yet Israel gets tarred and feathered because of fairly mild laws designed for self-preservation as a Jewish state, or collateral damage from response to brutal attacks.

Thus it belongs in a Syria thread, an Egypt thread, a Dubai thread, etc.

[jbg]

Name one country today, in the West, who is occupying and violating the rights of another people for over decades?

Does international law apply only to the West and not the rest of the world? Should the West simply do a lay-down to angry hordes elsewhere who want the benefits and comforts of the West without working for them?