A thought about Israel.

[Argus]

Can we include my "issues" with the creation of the state of France? I don't like the place, and discussion of its creation is every bit as practical and important.

No problem. Go back to the dark ages when it happened and argue with the Huns, the Gauls, the Vandals and the Romans.

And you can go and whine at the dead people who created Israel. It will be equally productive.

Does that mean fair compensation from the Arab states to all Jews forced to leave their homes, and compensation to Israel for the military attacks on it by Arab states, and compensation to Israel for the security costs due to terrorism funded by Arab states, and compensation to the families of Israelis murdered by terrorists funded by Arab governments?

Well in fact the government of Israel is apparently keeping a tally of all the Jews who have been forced to leave their homes in Arab lands and they are having problems coming up with a total equal or even close to the number of Arabs who were driven out of Israel.

Of the nearly 900,000 Jewish refugees, approximately 600,000 were absorbed by Israel; the remainder went to Europe and the Americas.

Jews flee Arab lands after persecution

I believe that's actually MORE than the number of Arabs who fled Palestine.

I'm not sure you want to get into compensation for damages caused by Arab states since that might open the door for compensation demands for the damages caused by Israel - for example bombing the entire country of Lebanon into rubble - twice.

There wouldn't be any compensation for that as it was entirely legal for Israel to respond to unprovoked attacks on its land by Lebanese terrorists and guerrilas. If the Lebanon government had EVER taken any action against these factions, of course, the story might be different.

With respect to compensation to Israelis for family members killed, you might want to remember that the number of Palestinians killed by the Israelis is more than 3 times that of Israelis killed by terrorists. And this is just during the two intifadas.

I think there's a difference in compensatory value between a life taken by a murdering terrorist who is being paid by a foreign government specifically to kill Jews, and a Palestinian killed accidentally or incidentally to police actions taken against Palestinian terrorists and guerrilas. Not to mention the large number of people on the list of Palestinians killed who DESERVED to be killed because of their own violence.

And then there's Jerusalem. Frankly, I'm on the Jews' side with that one, given the Muslims treated everyone else's holy sites like crap during their reign. The Jews have at least respected and protected the holy sites of other religions. To my mind, that earns them the right to look after the place.

The Church of the Nativity, the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, what have you would not still be there if what you say is true. The Turks had 600 years to destroy them. Israel will always put its security over the rights of Christians and Moslems and to my mind that means they are the least ones to be trusted with the place.

The Old City was rendered void of Jews. Jewish sites such as the Mount of Olives were desecrated. Jordan destroyed more than 50 synagogues15, and erased all evidence of a Jewish presence. In addition, all Jews were forced out of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City adjacent to the Western Wall, an area where Jews had lived for generations.

For 19 years, Jews and Christians residing in Israel (and even Israeli Muslims) were barred from their holy places, despite Jordan’s pledge to allow free access. Jews, for example, were unable to pray at the Western Wall; Christian Arabs living in Israel were denied access to churches and other religious sites in the Old City and nearby Bethlehem, also under Jordanian control.16 During Jordan’s reign over eastern Jerusalem, its restrictive laws on Christian institutions led to a dramatic decline in the holy city’s Christian population by more than half – from 25,000 to 11,000,17 a pattern that characterized Christian Arabs in other Arab countries throughout the Middle East where religious freedom is not honored.

Myths and Facts

[jbg]

So true and simple. Now, as another poster said, deal with it and instead of using the money given to them to kill - build, educate and industrialize instead. They would find a willing participant and investor in the Israeli nation.

That logic brings accusations of being a "Bushie".

All kidding aside, any suggest that depends not on foreign aid, the UN and graft on a huge scale is derided as being "colonialist", "Zionist" or worse. Whatever happened to the idea of independent countries actually encouraging business and creating wealth, like the US, Canada and Australia did. I mean one of those was a penal colony, and has become an orderly, law abiding country. To demand that of the "Palestinians"? Outrageous.

[jbg]

What utter nonsense!

Urging Palestinians to flee was: (1) reasonable, given the expulsion activities being carried out by Isreali forces, and (2) in no way the cause of the confiscation and continuing exclusion of these people.

Arab states' not signing a peace deal with Israel is because there has been no redress for the Palestinians. You need to keep the concept of cause and effect more clear in your head, it seems.

No states' have any obligation to accept masses of refugees as citizens. But hey, where are these refugees from, anyway? Israel/Occupied Palestine, right?

It was Argus's post.

The remainder of your post is fantastical and repetitive drivel, already amply refuted on this thread.

You never answered me. What about the Israeli Arabs that work productively, vote, and have the highest standard of living of any non-royal or dictator Arab in the Middle East?

[myata]

How about an experiment: perhaps, we could work out some kind of an agreement about what the principles of resolving this conflict could be, if only withing this board and thread? If anything, it should give us an idea how much of a challenge it actually is on the ground, where real lives and interests are wested. Only two criteria: 1) the agreement should be practical (i.e. technically possible and financially feasible); and 2) must be accepted unanimously (by posters in this thread).

[Figleaf]

You never answered me. What about the Israeli Arabs that work productively, vote, and have the highest standard of living of any non-royal or dictator Arab in the Middle East?

What (if they exist) about them? What bearing would it have on any of my arguments here?

[M.Dancer]

Many arabs fled during the war. Some fled because they were told to by their leaders. Some fled because they were afraid the storied that they were told about the Jews were true. Some even fled because they were threatened by the Jewish Fighters......

The arab states refuse to sign a peaxce deal because a state of war is in their best interests.....when you run a totalitarian state, having the Jews to blame is very handy. Matter of fact, blaming jews is routine. Low birth rate? Must be the jews poisoning the water.....

If the leaders of Syria made peace with Israel, they would be forced to actually solve their problems.....

As for the palestinians....The syrians could give a flying fluck about them....give you an idea....only one nation in the middle east will allow Palestinians to immgrate and become citiznes......and it ain't Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon Iraq........

[Rue]

Well Higgly since you told me to watcg what I say to you, I can't resist the urge to respond to you.

Where to we start. Oh how about your ignorance as to what dhimmitude is since you feel you are an authority on it after reading some info from Wikapedia which you clearly have not understood.

Let's see if we can explain it to you.

The concept of dhimmitude is directly related to the concept of confiscating land in the name of Islam as part of a holy war. Land is seized in one of three ways;

1-by force and violence, i.e., you kill the people on the land or tsake them captive and take it away;

2- without force, land is taken away from the inhabitants without violence because they have abandoned it out of fear or have died out

3-through treaty, i.e., the owners are forced either to convert to Islam to be able to own the land, or if they want to continue to reside on the land and they are not Muslim, they must pay jizya and become dhimmis

Now I really don't have time to educate you any further on this other then to say you do yourself a diservice if you think you can make statements on dhimmitude such as Jews can own land in Islamic countries without properly taking the time to understand it and understand the concept of Islamic religion and its lack of seperation between state and religion and therefore land ownership.

No doubt you are also ignorant of the fact that since 1948, 900,000 Jews in the Middle Eaqst's Arab nations have had their land confiscated and have been displaced precisely because of this law.

I will respond again to your other comments in a moment. I need to pee.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I have one question? Why do we always stop at the date ISRAEL was officially created and question history from that date forward?

On the same basis isn't it equally as absurd to question the creation of any country?

Perhaps we should go back through the history of mankind and question the legitimate creation of ANY country EVER created.

But no - let's stick to the 1948 formula. It's easier for the terrosit-sympathizing nitwits.

[Rue]

O.k. Higgly you made an incredibly ignorant statement that Jews were allowed to own land in Europe and demanded I explain where they weren't allowed to own land. So I will be pleased to explain since I am assuming with a name like Higgly instead of Shapiro or Goldfarb your Jewish history in Europe may be lacking.

To start with, please refer to any history book that discusses the existence of Jews in the diaspora, which I might add are all mostly written by non Jews and you will see unanimous agreement that until the 18th century Jews were forced to be pettry traders and money lenders, precisely because they were not allowed to own land in Europe.

Napoleon was the first European leader sympathetic to Jews and trying to emancipate them and treat them as equals. He was in fact the first European supporter of Jews returning to Israel.

Up to the 18th century Jews were forcefully expelled and slaughtered where-ever they lived in Europe and this was directly linked to the preachings of the Christian Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic sects. In fact the holocaust was the largest but by far not only slaughter of Jews.

Now in 1812, yes in Prussia Jews could own land BUT THEY HAD TO USE a German name. You would have to go through each country in Europe to examine what conditions it placed on land ownership for Jews but what was clear was this-if Jews did own land there were restrictive covenants placed on the terms of ownership and use of the land that did not apply to Christians. That is the point.

As well the point is that slaughters in Eastern Europe particularily in Russia forced Jews in the 1880's to constantly be on the run unable to own land as it was seized or stolen and the constant being on the run from slaughters is precisely why they began buying land in Palestine and began sending relatives there.

I will not waste my energy responding to you further other then to say from the late 1880's to the end of the second world war, anti-semitism and institutional and wide spread promulgation of laws discriminating against Jews, enabled all their land and property to be stolen, seized and/or destroyed.

Switzerland became the bank of choice to take and store stolen Jewish property.

The Nazi Empire and its sattelite nations, Italy, and the Warsaw Pact nations of post World War Two, all stole and seized Jewish land and property and made it impossible for Jews to own land. You asked for names of countries, try Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Russia, Germany, Croatia, Poland, Bulgaria, to name a few although the Bulgarian King himself was not an anti-semite and it was mostly the policies of either the Communists or the Nazis before them.

As for France, it has always discriminated against Jews and was a principal player in seizing Jewish land and property leading up to World War Two.

Which brings us to my final point in this second response. When people like you attempt to revise history and simplify the history of Jews, as being Jews bad, Palestinians good, I have one thing to say to you. Jews like Palestinians have had their land, their property and their lives destroyed, ruined and taken away both by Christian European nations and by Muslim nations following the laws of dhimmitude.

So when we talk about Palestinians requiring just compensation also remember Jews are entitled to it as well and the irony is, if you want to simplify this as Jews being bad guy colonial expansionists who stole property then get it right, they are no different then Palestinians-they are displaced refugees and the idea of trying to repatriate them back to Europe and given them back their lands and properties is as impractical as saying o.k. lets simply move all Palestinians into Israel.

This is why in my equation there is no good and bad, there are simply two cursed people both in need of

just treatment.

[Rue]

Now since Higgly challenged my earlier comments as to the origins of Israel I wish to clarify them so there is no mistaking what I said. I stated that in 1948 when Israel began preparing to form as a state leading up to the war of 1949, this depiction of Jews simply stealing land from Arabs and causing them to flee is absolute simplistic tripe.

First of all let's be clear on what Palestine was in the early 1900's and late 1880's. It was an empty piece of swamp. The land was inhospitable and no one was living there. It was a back-water. In 1906 for your information, the population of Jerusalem was 60,000 of whom only 7,000 were Muslim, 13,000 were Christian and 40,000 were Jews, but in the revisionist history of today's anti-Israelists they are unaware of such facts and would like it to appear there were no Jews in Palestine and suddenly presto bango they all showed up in 1949 to seize the land.

Let us talk actual historic facts. 6 months before the 1949 War of Independence, 350,000 Muslims fled what the 1949-1967 border of Israel long before there were any shellings. To say shellings caused them to flee is absolute and utter b.s. They did not leave because of any shelling. They left because Dr. Khalil Hussein created and spread a lie called the massacre of Deir Yassin in which Arabs were told Zionists had slaughtered thousands of Arabs, causing them to panic and flee and this is why 350,000 left long before the actual war of independence. In fact Yasir Arafat the late leader of the PLO stated on many instances that

300,000 Arabs were forced to flee by Egypt to the Gaza Strip in 1949. Even Arafat made it clear Egypt andnot Israel caused that movement of people to the Gaza.

That said, 80% of Israel's 20,850 square kilometres could be argued as being abandoned property that Arab Palestinians might want to make a claim to, but then it should be made clear of that 80% of land, 25% of that 80% was wasteland and not capable of sustaining life. It would have been swamp and bog or malaria mud puddles.

Now you can revise history all you want and depict Jews as thieves stealing existing property but this is b.s. Yes some of the land was purchased from Palestinians but often at inflated prices because Palestinians chose to grab the inflated values offered.

You want to depict it as evil Zionists be my guest, but the fact is Israel has tried to offer financial compensation for land but has been rejected for the simple reason that the Arab League has stated just compensation means ending the state of Israel and allowing all Palestinians to move back.

Nowhere in the history of war and refugees has one ethnic group after it lost a war and been displaced made such continuing demands and completely dominated the UN's agenda.

So let's call it the way it really is. To do that I go back to March 31, 1977, when the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with then Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein that says it all and I quote it verbatum;

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan. "

As I stated earlier to pretend Palestine is a unique and unjust situation is b..s. Palestinian refugees and the notion of fighting for Palestine is a pretense to destroy Israel.

Palestinian leaders tell the West one thing and their people and the Arab peoples another.

This is precisely why Hamas and Hezbollah will not recognize Israel.

This isn't about creating a nation called Palestine, it is about destroying Israel. Palestinians are despised by Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, Egyptians. The only function they serve is an excuse to fight Israel and depict the Arab world as victims of colonialism.

The fact is the Arab world openly embraced Hitler and Nazism just as it has embraced anti-semitism, anti-Christianism, anti-Hinduism, and just as it has committed hatred and war against Jews, Christians, Bahaiis, Zorastreans, gays, communists, trade unionists, feminists in its midst.

Now you want to talk about b.s. and nonsense and drivel try this on.

Here are direct quotes from the Arab world, not from nasty bad guy Zionists as to the origins of the Palestinian refugees:

1-Jamal Husseini, acting chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee (AHC), in an address to the UN Security Council, April 23, 1948 said:

"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce ... They preferred to abandon their homes,belongings and everything they possessed."

2-Emil Ghory, secretary of the AHC, stated in the Beirut Daily Telegraph, on Sept. 6, 1948;

"The fact that there are those 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..."

3-Habib Issa, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, stated in the New York Lebanese daily al-Hoda on June 8, 1951 ,

"in 1948, Azzam Pasha, then League secretary, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade ... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property, and to stay temporarily in neighbouring fraternal states."

4- in the March 1976 edition of Falastin a-Thaura, the official journal of the PLO, Mahmud Abbas ("Abu Mazen"), PLO spokesman, wrote:

"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, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."

5-The London Economist reported, in its Oct. 2/48 edition that;

"There is little doubt that the most potent of the factors [in the flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit ... And it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

6- The then Premier of Syria in 1948, Khaled al-Azem, in his memoirs, published in 1973, stated and I quote directly;

" ... the fifth factor was the call by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and leave for the bordering Arab countries ... We brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees by calling on them and pleading with them to leave their land."

So I will close with the following comment. Unlike some of you who choose to read what you want to hear and choose to depict the Middle East as a simple right v.s. wrong conflict and deliberately choose to ignore reading and researching the matter thinking Wikapedia makes you an authority on Jewish or Middle East history, it is not a simple black and white issue and most certainly the Arab League of Nations deliberately chose to create Palestinian refugees as a political ploy and it works precisely because the next generation such as yourself forget history and are ignorant of anything that happens five years ago let alone 40 years ago. However some of us bother to read and remember.

[Higgly]

Of the nearly 900,000 Jewish refugees, approximately 600,000 were absorbed by Israel; the remainder went to Europe and the Americas.

I didn't realize these figures had become so grossly inflated. That the fact that 1948 is selected as a baseline gives a clear indication that what persecution did occur was retaliation for hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs being driven from their homeland by Jewish forces.

I suspect that the numbers here are inflated by the following factors:

1) Israel would see this as a counter-weight to claims about Palestinian refugees. Here we have, once again, the Palestinians being held accountable for actions totally out of their control

2) the fact that the claims to having fled are antecdotal and based on claims made by Jews arriving in Israel and not subject to objective international audit

3) many of the numbers would include Jews who, like those from many other parts of the world, immigrated to Israel because they saw it as their new homeland where they would be part of a majority. Particularly since Israel was so close at hand.

Clearly, like the Palestinian refugees, the fault for this lies with Israel for causing the refugee crisis in the first place and so the reponsibility for compensation should likewise rest with Israel.

There wouldn't be any compensation for that as it was entirely legal for Israel to respond to unprovoked attacks on its land by Lebanese terrorists and guerrilas. If the Lebanon government had EVER taken any action against these factions, of course, the story might be different.

Well let's just have a look at Israel's history in Lebanon, shall we? First it is important to note that the Zionists and early Israeli governments have been smacking their lips at the prospect of getting their hands on south Lebanon for some time.

The first Israeli invasion of Lebanon started in 1978 with the intention of rooting out the PLO who had been conducting terrorist operations from the refugee camps in South Beirut. Altogether between 1973 and 1978, 105 Israelis had been killed in this way. The invasion culminated in the full-scale bombing of Lebanon in 1982 and by the time the Israelis had left they had killed over 15,000 Lebanese, mostly civilians, as well as 2,500 Palestinian refugees who had been left defencless by the departure of the PLO. During the bombing campaign, Lebanon was more or less completely destroyed. During much of the time that the PLO was conducting its raids into Israel, Lebanon was in the midst of a civil war, and any suggestion that it should bear responsibility for the relatively small number of Israeli deaths caused by the PLO to the point that Israel's actions were justified is psychopathic.

Then we have the second and more recent invasion. Again, a small number of Israelis are killed and the entire country is bombed into tiny pieces. Again only an psychopath would consider this an appropriate response.

This sort of gross over-reaction on the part of Israel to every incident is not new. Consider the Qibya massacre of 1953. A small group of armed Arabs crossed the Israeli/Jordanian border near Qibya and murdered an Israeli womand and two children. The government of Jordan pledged that it would ctach and punish the culprits. This wasn't good enough for the Israelis though. Ariel Sharon was sent with a squad of soldiers by Moshe Dayan across the border to the village of Qibya where he massacred 69 villagers, two thirds of whom were women and children.

This sort of psychopathic over-reaction has been a constant feature of the IDF not by accident, but by intention and part of an openly discussed "Iron Wall" strategy for dealing with the Arabs.

Yes indeed. For such extreme and murderous over-reaction, compensation should indeed be paid.

I think there's a difference in compensatory value between a life taken by a murdering terrorist who is being paid by a foreign government specifically to kill Jews, and a Palestinian killed accidentally or incidentally to police actions taken against Palestinian terrorists and guerrilas. Not to mention the large number of people on the list of Palestinians killed who DESERVED to be killed because of their own violence.

No, there is no difference when it comes to the death of innocent bystanders. As for someone deserving to be killed I would say that it takes more than an army uniform and paid informer to make that decision.

i]The Old City was rendered void of Jews. Jewish sites such as the Mount of Olives were desecrated. Jordan destroyed more than 50 synagogues15, and erased all evidence of a Jewish presence. In addition, all Jews were forced out of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City adjacent to the Western Wall, an area where Jews had lived for generations.

For 19 years, Jews and Christians residing in Israel (and even Israeli Muslims) were barred from their holy places, despite Jordan’s pledge to allow free access. Jews, for example, were unable to pray at the Western Wall; Christian Arabs living in Israel were denied access to churches and other religious sites in the Old City and nearby Bethlehem, also under Jordanian control.16 During Jordan’s reign over eastern Jerusalem, its restrictive laws on Christian institutions led to a dramatic decline in the holy city’s Christian population by more than half – from 25,000 to 11,000,17 a pattern that characterized Christian Arabs in other Arab countries throughout the Middle East where religious freedom is not honored.

I went to the link you supplied and see they provide today's date as being October 26, 2006, so I had to take a moment to figure out whether that was supposed to be a myth or fact.

In any case, when I saw your post I thought you must be referrring to some sort of long-standing status quo during which Arabs had done these things. Instead you are referring to the years after 1948 during which there was a failure to come to a peace agreement. In fact modern historians now agree that the Jordanians, and King Abdullah in particular, had tried valiantly to come to an agreement with the Israelis, including guarantees for freedom of access and worship but were stonewalled by the Israelis, and most particularly, Ben Gurion, whose attitude throughout was "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too." Talks afailed ultimately because Ben Gurion refused to compromise on anything and finally decided that it wasn't worth the effort to come to any terms with the Jordanians who he saw as a weak puppet state of the British. He instead placed more iportance on coming to some sort of understanding with the Egyptions, although the Israelis managed to completely sabotage this as well.

I am going to start another thread concerning the mythinformation Israel and its apologists constantly spread about 1948 as there are a lot fo things that need to be set straight.

[Higgly]

The arab states refuse to sign a peaxce deal because a state of war is in their best interests.....

In fact modern historians have come to the conclusions that is was the Israelis who were the difficult ones and that the Arabs - the Jordanians, the Egyptians and the Syrians - did make honest efforts at peace following the 1948 war. This nonsense about the Arabs refusing to agree to peace terms is just Israeli mythinformation.

As for the palestinians....The syrians could give a flying fluck about them....give you an idea....only one nation in the middle east will allow Palestinians to immgrate and become citiznes......and it ain't Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon Iraq........

More mythinformation. The Syrians offered to take 300,000 Palestinian refugees in exhcnage for water rights on the Sea of Galilee. Israel refused. In fact Israeli intransigence blocked peace settlements at every turn. Jordan has absorbed many Palestinian refugees. The Queen of Jordan is a Palestinian.

Once again we have one of Israel's apologists (that's you Dancer) demanding that other states take responsibility for a problem that Israel created.

[Higgly]

Well Higgly since you told me to watcg what I say to you, I can't resist the urge to respond to you.

Where to we start. Oh how about your ignorance as to what dhimmitude is since you feel you are an authority on it after reading some info from Wikapedia which you clearly have not understood.

Let's see if we can explain it to you.

The concept of dhimmitude is directly related to the concept of confiscating land in the name of Islam as part of a holy war. Land is seized in one of three ways;

1-by force and violence, i.e., you kill the people on the land or tsake them captive and take it away;

2- without force, land is taken away from the inhabitants without violence because they have abandoned it out of fear or have died out

3-through treaty, i.e., the owners are forced either to convert to Islam to be able to own the land, or if they want to continue to reside on the land and they are not Muslim, they must pay jizya and become dhimmis

Now I really don't have time to educate you any further on this other then to say you do yourself a diservice if you think you can make statements on dhimmitude such as Jews can own land in Islamic countries without properly taking the time to understand it and understand the concept of Islamic religion and its lack of seperation between state and religion and therefore land ownership.

No doubt you are also ignorant of the fact that since 1948, 900,000 Jews in the Middle Eaqst's Arab nations have had their land confiscated and have been displaced precisely because of this law.

I will respond again to your other comments in a moment. I need to pee.

Of course we have all of this on your authority alone do we? I don't see any references to back up your claims, although I have cited Wikipedia, which covers the the dhimmi laws in some detail, including the observation that for the most part the Arab world stopped applying the laws in the early 1800s. Again there is no mention of the dhimmi laws forbidding the ownership of homes by Jews and the Wikipedia entry points out that in Tunisia during the period for which the dhimmi laws were applied, Jews owned many fine homes. I also see no mention of these laws being applied in Palestine.

I find your suggestion that this should be justification for what has been and is still being done to the Palestinians risible and in fact a sign of desperation.

You are right about one thing Rue. In the absence of any evidence to back up your claims, we won't be discussing them again.

[Higgly]

O.k. Higgly you made an incredibly ignorant statement that Jews were allowed to own land in Europe and demanded I explain where they weren't allowed to own land. So I will be pleased to explain since I am assuming with a name like Higgly instead of Shapiro or Goldfarb your Jewish history in Europe may be lacking.

Rue the fact that would would draw conclusions about me based on a pseudonym says a lot about how deep your thought processes run.

To start with, please refer to any history book that discusses the existence of Jews in the diaspora, which I might add are all mostly written by non Jews and you will see unanimous agreement that until the 18th century Jews were forced to be pettry traders and money lenders, precisely because they were not allowed to own land in Europe.

That's fascinating Rue. Would that include the Rothschilds?

Up to the 18th century Jews were forcefully expelled and slaughtered where-ever they lived in Europe and this was directly linked to the preachings of the Christian Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic sects. In fact the holocaust was the largest but by far not only slaughter of Jews.

Now in 1812, yes in Prussia Jews could own land BUT THEY HAD TO USE a German name. You would have to go through each country in Europe to examine what conditions it placed on land ownership for Jews but what was clear was this-if Jews did own land there were restrictive covenants placed on the terms of ownership and use of the land that did not apply to Christians. That is the point.

Well that's interesting Rue, but my point pertained to modern history.

The Nazi Empire and its sattelite nations, Italy, and the Warsaw Pact nations of post World War Two, all stole and seized Jewish land and property and made it impossible for Jews to own land.

I guess I expected you were referring to something other than the Nazi/Axis regime. Nobody is going to argue this with you, certainly not me.

You asked for names of countries, try Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Russia, Germany, Croatia, Poland, Bulgaria, to name a few although the Bulgarian King himself was not an anti-semite and it was mostly the policies of either the Communists or the Nazis before them.

Throughout modern history, Russia and its satellites were communist countries Rue. Nobody was allowed to own land.

As for France, it has always discriminated against Jews and was a principal player in seizing Jewish land and property leading up to World War Two.

You had better provide a reference for this Rue. The father of persecuted French army officer Alfred Dreyfus owned a house.

Which brings us to my final point in this second response. When people like you attempt to revise history and simplify the history of Jews, as being Jews bad, Palestinians good, I have one thing to say to you. Jews like Palestinians have had their land, their property and their lives destroyed, ruined and taken away both by Christian European nations and by Muslim nations following the laws of dhimmitude.

So when we talk about Palestinians requiring just compensation also remember Jews are entitled to it as well and the irony is, if you want to simplify this as Jews being bad guy colonial expansionists who stole property then get it right, they are no different then Palestinians-they are displaced refugees and the idea of trying to repatriate them back to Europe and given them back their lands and properties is as impractical as saying o.k. lets simply move all Palestinians into Israel.

This is why in my equation there is no good and bad, there are simply two cursed people both in need of

just treatment.

None of the problems that you describe, whether exaggerated or not, were the fault of the Palestinians. The Palestinians did not cause the Holocaust. They did not cause the Tzarist pogroms. They did not apply the dhimmi laws to deny Jews the ownership of their land. The Palestinian Arabs, right up to the time of the British, were subjects of the Ottoman empire, just like the Jews. They did in fact, live in relative peace with the few Jews who were in Palestine for centuries.

The Palestinians do not deserve the fate that has befallen them as a result of the creation of Israel .

And finally there is your comment about people like me. You know nothing about me, but I will tell you this. I am someone who is sick and tired of the constant flood of mythinformation which comes from Israel and its apologists about what has happened and continues to happen in the Middle East. I will make every effort to keep guys like you honest.

[Rue]

I welcome anyone debating this issue and providing information to counter what I stated.

[Rue]

Higgly stop with the emotional baiting and references such as being sick and tired or Zionists with smacking lips. You want me to debate you, then make an attempt to provide me with information that counters anything I have said and proves it wrong. Otherwise Higgly you have no credibility and you are just another of a long list of people that finds Israel bad, Jews bad, Palestinians innocent victims.

Most importantly read back your response. Stating Palestinians are not responsible for the holocaust says it all. No one in any discussion ever raised the notion that Palestinians are responsible for the holocaust

The fact you brought it up shows you obviously have unresolved issues with the holocaust and resent the idea or notion that Jews in Israel might be just as "victimized" as Palestinians which was the point and only point.

The difference between us Higgly is I dop not attempt to portray Palestinians as bad and unfair or Israeli Jews as bad or unfair. I see them both as equals, both equally cursed by historic evens beyond their control.

This is not the black and white, good v.s.bad, victim and oppressor equation you opine it is and I suggest rather then ask me about dhimnmitude, and demand references, you simply take your butt into a library or type in dhimmitude on the inter-net and read instead of taking Wikapedia out of context.

You might also want to try read some history books and challenge yourself and your preconceptions unless of course you are satisfied you have figured it all out...in which case what do you say Higgly want to come out of the closet and tell us what you mean by being sick and tired of....who you really resentful towards-Israel? Jews for being refugees and escaping the holocaust, people who think both Palestinians and Israeli Jews have equally as valid arguements?

Spit it out Higgly. Why so angry and sick and tired. what have Israelis ever done to you? Is there someone kosher in your life you are angry at?

Come on Higgly debate what I have said. Stop with the lip smacking zionist and sick and tired comments and debate the issues. I can debate issues. I can't debate your anger or feelings.

Want to keep me honest, avoid turning this personal and debate what I have said and prove its wrong.

[M.Dancer]

The arab states refuse to sign a peaxce deal because a state of war is in their best interests.....

In fact modern historians have come to the conclusions that is was the Israelis who were the difficult ones and that the Arabs - the Jordanians, the Egyptians and the Syrians - did make honest efforts at peace following the 1948 war. This nonsense about the Arabs refusing to agree to peace terms is just Israeli mythinformation.

As for the palestinians....The syrians could give a flying fluck about them....give you an idea....only one nation in the middle east will allow Palestinians to immgrate and become citiznes......and it ain't Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon Iraq........

More mythinformation. The Syrians offered to take 300,000 Palestinian refugees in exhcnage for water rights on the Sea of Galilee. Israel refused. In fact Israeli intransigence blocked peace settlements at every turn. Jordan has absorbed many Palestinian refugees. The Queen of Jordan is a Palestinian.

Once again we have one of Israel's apologists (that's you Dancer) demanding that other states take responsibility for a problem that Israel created.

"Modern Historians" is that a club we can join? They all agree do they?

Iz that a fact? So syria was willing to trade palestinians for water? How ...umm....generous. Why won't they allow any now?

Queen Noor is a palestinian? When did Washington DC get annexed by palestine?

[M.Dancer]

Once again we have one of Israel's apologists (that's you Dancer) demanding that other states take responsibility for a problem that Israel created.

Better an apologist than a truith bender or someone who is ignorant of the facts or cherry picks facts laid out by the enemies of the jews.

[M.Dancer]

The Queen of Jordan is a Palestinian

Mythology of ignorance?

Queen Noor was born Lisa Najeeb Halaby a daughter of Najeeb Halaby, a former CEO of Pan-American World Airways, one time head of the Federal Aviation Administration, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and his first wife, Doris Carlquist. She has a younger brother, Christian Halaby, a composer and guitarist, and a younger sister, Alexa Halaby (a University of Pennsylvania squash champion who was a bridesmaid at the 1986 wedding of Maria Owings Shriver and Arnold Schwarzenegger). She was born in Washington, D.C..

http://www.answers.com/Queen%20Noor

You are sloppy Higgly......

[myata]

Let's go back to the basic facts then; in my understanding (without spending an equivalent of a PhD research) they are more or less like this:

1. Before British take over control of the territories, Jewish population was in significant minority (specifically, around 10%).

2. While under British control, population in question grew multi-fold due to uncontrolled immigration from outside.

3. Certain groups among the population in question started campaign of terror followed by open armed confrontation which eventually resulted in withdrawal of British control and unilateral proclamation of the new state.

4. The new state had forcefully expelled large number or even majority of the original ethnic population of the territories on which the new state was created.

5. International body controlled by Western powers recognized the new state and partitioned the territories.

6. Multiple armed conflicts, cycles of violence ensuited from the struggle for the territories.

Feel free to add to, or modify any of the points above as long as good standing reference is provided. We should be able to settle on what actually happened with the wealth of information available today.

[Figleaf]

I have one question? Why do we always stop at the date ISRAEL was officially created and question history from that date forward?

On the same basis isn't it equally as absurd to question the creation of any country?

Perhaps we should go back through the history of mankind and question the legitimate creation of ANY country EVER created.

But no - let's stick to the 1948 formula. It's easier for the terrosit-sympathizing nitwits.

What is relevant in this issue is the rules of modern international law currently prevailing. The political conditions of pre-modern ethnic clusters, city-states, empires, or petty potentates are of no concern. In terms of modern international law, the period of policital relevance begins with the League of Nations Mandate held by the British. At this point the British held international authority for the region, but were not successors of any prior state. Any and all prior sovereignties in the region were extinguished.

[Figleaf]

I am going to start another thread concerning the mythinformation Israel and its apologists constantly spread about 1948 as there are a lot fo things that need to be set straight.

I look forward to it.

[Figleaf]

The difference between us Higgly is I dop not attempt to portray Palestinians as bad and unfair or Israeli Jews as bad or unfair. I see them both as equals, both equally cursed by historic evens beyond their control.

But they are decidedly not 'both equally cursed'. One side today lives under the boot-heel of the other.

Spit it out Higgly. Why so angry and sick and tired. what have Israelis ever done to you? Is there someone kosher in your life you are angry at?

FOUL!

[Figleaf]

Let's go back to the basic facts then; in my understanding (without spending an equivalent of a PhD research) they are more or less like this:

1. Before British take over control of the territories, Jewish population was in significant minority (specifically, around 10%).

2. While under British control, population in question grew multi-fold due to uncontrolled immigration from outside.

3. Certain groups among the population in question started campaign of terror followed by open armed confrontation which eventually resulted in withdrawal of British control and unilateral proclamation of the new state.

4. The new state had forcefully expelled large number or even majority of the original ethnic population of the territories on which the new state was created.

5. International body controlled by Western powers recognized the new state and partitioned the territories.

6. Multiple armed conflicts, cycles of violence ensuited from the struggle for the territories.

Feel free to add to, or modify any of the points above as long as good standing reference is provided. We should be able to settle on what actually happened with the wealth of information available today.

It may be relevant to add around #3 or 4 that a plan for a two state partition of the area had been propounded in the UN by western states.

[M.Dancer]

I have one question? Why do we always stop at the date ISRAEL was officially created and question history from that date forward?

On the same basis isn't it equally as absurd to question the creation of any country?

Perhaps we should go back through the history of mankind and question the legitimate creation of ANY country EVER created.

But no - let's stick to the 1948 formula. It's easier for the terrosit-sympathizing nitwits.

What is relevant in this issue is the rules of modern international law currently prevailing. The political conditions of pre-modern ethnic clusters, city-states, empires, or petty potentates are of no concern. In terms of modern international law, the period of policital relevance begins with the League of Nations Mandate held by the British. At this point the British held international authority for the region, but were not successors of any prior state. Any and all prior sovereignties in the region were extinguished.

Inaresting......so what about all dem arabs and their ottoman era land deeds?