Higgly Posted October 4, 2006 Report Posted October 4, 2006 In 1947 the UN partitioned British Mandate Palestine into Arab and Jewish areas. In 1948 Israel declared itself a state. The US immediately recognized Israel, followed by the USSR. The surrounding Arab states attacked and the resulting conflict has come to be known in Israel as "The War of Independence". Palestinian Arabs refer to it as "The Naqba" or, "The Disaster". Since 1948 a number of myths have been promulgated by Israel and by its supporters. Many of these articles of 'mythinformation' (my word) form a core part of Israeli propoganda and are still being taught in Israeli schools and quoted by important members of the Canadian press. The Myths. 1) During the 1948 war, the objective of the Arabs was to destroy Israel and, although the Arab armies greatly outnumbered the Jewish fighters, Israel prevailed in a desperate and heroic David and Goliath struggle through pluck, determination and guile. 2) Immediately before and during the war, approximately 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled Palestine because the Arab attackers told them to leave or be slaughtered. They became refugees living in the adjacent countries. 3) Following the war, Israel made every effort to negotiate a peace but the Arabs refused to talk and were completely intransigent. The Facts. 1) During the 1948 war, the objective of the Arabs was to destroy Israel and, although the Arab armies greatly outnumbered the Jewish fighters, Israel prevailed in a heroic and desperate David and Goliath struggle through pluck, determination and guile. History now shows that different Arab countries had different objectives. King Abdullah of Jordan, rather than wanting to destroy Israel, sought only to shore up his claim to the Arab parts of Palestine asssigned by the British as the Jordanian Protectorate - mostly the West Bank. Prior to the war he negotiated an agreement with Israeli emissary Golda Meir in which he agreed to respect Israel's borders as laid out in the UN partition agreement and he kept his word. Jordanian forces never attempted to cross the borders laid out in the partition resolution. Israel, on the other hand, attacked areas under Jordan's protectorate and tried to take land from Abdullah. At the end of the war, Israel held nearly twice as much land as had been granted it under the partition agreement, but was prevented from taking key strategic sites in the Jordanian Protectorate by an effective Jordanian defense. History also shows that Jewish fighters outnumbered the Arabs significantly throughout the war. At the start in May of 1948, there were 35,000 Jewish fighters against 25,000 Arab fighters. By the end of the year, Israel had 96,000 active fighters. Although the Arabs had increased their forces throughout, they never came close to matching the numerical strength of the Israeli forces. In addition, during this time. Israel was able to substantioally increase its armament by shipments from Czechoslovakia. 2) Palestinian Arabs fled their homes because the Arab attackers told them to leave or be slaughtered. This is an important assertion for Israel because it is often used to support a claim that it is the Arab countries who caused the Palestinian refugee crisis so Israel has no responsibility for mitigating the problem. Historical records show that the majority of Palestinian Arabs were deliberately expelled by Jewish fighters. Interviews with refugees from Jaffa and Haifa tell of being driven from their homes by mortar shelling and sniper fire coming from Jewish-held areas such as Tel Aviv. Israeli records tell of David Ben Gurion giving the command (with a sweep of his hand) to drive some 60,000 refugees from the towns of Ramle and Lydda. Other refugees fled because they had been terrorized as a result of slaughters carried out by Jewish forces in villages throughout Palestine. This ethnic cleansing was part of a master plan called plan D which called for the Hagganah (soon to be the IDF) to clear Arab towns and villages of potentially hostile arab residents. It was also in keeping with the original British proposal for the partition of Palestine which called for "transfer" of Arabs out of areas allocated to the Jews. It is recorded that Ben Gurion and the Zionists were originally opposed to the British proposal for partition, but changed their minds when they realized that it called for the expulsion of Arabs from Jewish lands. The Arabs were against partition because it called for them to give up lands they had lived on for centuries in favour of Europeans who for the most part had been there less than 20 years. While Arab commanders did in fact warn residents in areas where fighting was to take place, this is commonplace during armed conflicts and is in fact recognized as proper war protocol among civilized nations. Following the war, Israel closed its borders to the refugees, refusing to allow them to return. In 1950, Israel passed the abondonnment laws which stated that Arabs who left their homes for areas outside of Palestine, or for areas of Palestine occupied by forces hostile to Israel, had effectively abandannoned their claim to ownership of their properties. This has been used ever since to justify the seizure of Arab land throughout Palestine and to construct Israeli cities (known as settlements) for Jewish immigrants to live in. 3) Israel made every effort to negotiate a peace but the Arabs refused to talk and were completely intransigent. Taking the Arab countries one at a time... Jordan As mentioned above, King Abdullah of Jordan had agreed to respect Israel's borders and kept his word, although Israel did not do the same. Following the war he tried to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel which would have guaranteed, among other concessions, access to religious sites in Jerusalem as well as a cessation of all hostilities for a minimum period of 5 years. However Ben Gurion stubbornly refused to make any concessions in exchange for the advantages Israel sought. In the end no peace was reached because Ben Gurion ultimately decided that it was in Israel's best interests to deal with Egypt first and that peace agreements with the Arabs were not the highest priority. Ben Gurion's priorities for Israel consisted of the following.... 1) Building up infrastructure in the newly formed state of Israel 2) Relations with American Jewery 3) Peace with the Arabs The second is instructive. Throughout the period during which the state of Israel was created, with minor exceptions, the Zionists consistently aligned themselves with major world powers (first the British, then the French and finally the Americans) and eschewed direct discussion with local Arabs. Following the armistice, Israeli forces terrorized Jordanian Arab villages in a number of 'reprisal' raids. Throughout the post-war period, Israel constantly sought justifications to attack not only Jordan but the other Arab states as well. This was in keeping with its 'Iron Wall' strategy. The idea was that the only way to deal with the Arabs was by the application of brute military force. This strategy was first proposed by Palestinian Zionist Ze'ev Jobotinsky in the 1920s and formed a key part of Israel's approach to the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab world in general. There were a number of incidents during which Palestinian refugees tried to infiltrate back across the border to reclaim their homes or to attack Jewish settlers who were now living on their lands. Although the Jordanians, and in fact all of the Arab states around Israel, did their best to prevent such infiltration, Israel adopted a policy of collective punishment raids on Arab villages. Under the Geneva conventions, which Israel refuses to honour, collective punishment is forbidden. It also adopted a free-fire strategy. During the period between 1949 and 1956 some 5,000 infiltrators, mostly unarmed, were shot and killed. This is important considering that many of Israel's supporters are now claiming that the Palestinians deserve to lose their land because they have 'stayed away' for 50 years. One such case of a reprisal raid was an attack on the Jordanian Arab village of Qibya. A small group of infiltrators had crossed into Israel from Jordan near the village of Qibya and murdered a woman and two children. Although Jordan offered to find and prosecute the offenders, and advised that the they were most likely Palestinian Arab refugees and not residents of Qibya, an Israeli force commandered by Ariel Sharon was sent by Defense Minister Moshe Dayan to conduct a collective punishment reprisal raid on the village. Sharon's forces came unexpectedly out of the night and subjected the village to heavy gunfire, trapping the residents in their homes. They then systematically blew up all the houses. Some 69 people were killed, two thirds of whom were women and children. There was an international outcry following the incident. These sort of extreme reprisal raids became Sharon's specialty; it is hard not to read descriptions of them without coming to the conclusion that he, and possibly Dayan, were psychopaths. In another incident, Dayan tried to justify a reprisal raid based on the fact that a flock of Israeli sheep had somehow found their way on the wrong side of the Jordanian border. There was never any evidence that the sheep were stolen, and may very well have simply wandered off while the shepherd slept. Untold numbers of lives were saved when the UN found the sheep and returned them unharmed. The Jews complained that one of the rams looked suspiciously tired. The UN jokingly referred to this as the 'Bo Peep Indicent'. Another insult to both Jordan and Syria, was an Israeli scheme proposed by Dayan to divert the waters of the Jordan River in order to provide water to irrigate the Negev Desert. The Jordan River is considered an international waterway and its diversion to serve one boundary state over the needs of others is strictly illegal under international law. Israel did it anyways. Again, it was Ben Gurion who approved the scheme over the objections of moderates in the government. The American government of Dwight Eisenhower protested to no avail. It is entirely plausible that Israel's strategy during this time was to provoke its Arabs neighbours and to use any response as a pretext to renew the war and to take more land. What it achieved was to greatly inflame Arab hatred for Israel. Lebanon Given recent events, Israeli behaviour towards Lebanon is instructive, and it is useful to view this in an historical context. Palestinian Zionists under Chaim Weitzmann did their best to have south Lebanon up to the Litani River included in the British Mandate for Palestine at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference following the First World War. At this conference, Weitzmann was successful at having the Balfour declaration included in the Peace Settlement, formalizing not only the British Mandate but the Jewish claim on Palestine. Had Weitzmann succeded in his attempt to include South Lebanon, it is probable that Israel would now extend to the Litani River. However, the British and the French had already carved up the Middle East in the secret Sykes-Picot agreement which gave Lebanon to France; Weitzmann's efforts were futile. Following the 1948 war, Israeli cabinet documents show that Ben Gurion plotted constantly to overthrow the government of Lebanon. His plan was to destabilize the government and install a puppet Christian Maronite regime that would invite Israel to invade under some pretext. Israel would then occupy, and ultimately annex south Lebanon up to the Litani. Considering Israel's activities to divert the Jordan River, it is likely that the theft of water from the Litani was a key objective. In both 1978 and recently, Israel invaded Lebanon announcing that it was going to stop at the Litani. Lebanon, for its part, respected the armistice borders following the cessation of hostilities at the end of the 1948 war. Like most of the other Arab countries, Lebanon was poor and struggled to deal with the huge flood of Palestinian refugees created by Israel's actions during the war. When Israel complained that Palestinian Arab refugees were infiltrating back across the border and taking up possession of their homes and lands once again, Lebanon obligingly moved them north to South Beirut where they sat in the refugee camps of Sabra and Chatilla for some 30 years until one day Ariel Sharon's IDF had more than 2,500 of them slaughtered after driving the PLO out of Lebanon. Most of the refugees slaughtered by Sharon were women, children, and elderly men. Syria Israeli mythinformation makes Syria out to be Israel's most implacable enemy. In fact, following the armistice, there was a year and a half of peace between the two nations. The first armed conflict came about when Israel unilaterally tried to change the border status quo. The armistice agreement laid out a DMZ between Israel and Syria that was to be monitored and policed by the UN and in which 'normal life' (as it was prior to the war) was to be resumed. While Syria respected the DMZ, Israel regarded it as part of its sovereign territory and began an aggressive program of building new settlements and introducing soldiers and policemen disguised as civilians. In one case, Israel forcefully moved several hundred Bedouins to Arab villages in north Israel when they refused to accept Israeli identity cards for the DMZ. Israel also began a series of projects, not the least of these was the diversion of the Jordan River, by carrying out construction work in the DMZ, and forcefully evacuating Arab villages to this end. Things came to a head when Israel sent a patrol of soldiers disguised as police into an area of the DMZ that was Syrian dominated. The Syrian army attacked the patrol, killing 7 soldiers and taking the remainder prisoner. Israel responded by having the Israeli Air Force bomb Syrian police posts and attack 3 Syrian villages in the DMZ. The result was an international outcry against Israel. There were also a number of serious incidents involving highly agressive behaviour on the part of Israel. In one such incident, 5 Israeli soldiers were caught inside the Syrian border trying to retrieve a telephone tapping device which had been planted by the IDF. In an unprecedented act of air piracy, The Israeli Air Force intercepted a Syrian passenger liner and forced it to the ground inside Israel. The passengers and crew were held hostage to force the release of the Israeli soldiers. And international outcry forced the Israelis to release the airliner. Another incident, called operation Kinneret, involved an unprovoked surprise attack on Syrian positions lead by Ariel Sharon. This attack resulted in the death of 50 Syrian soldiers an the capture of 30 more. The justification for the attack was that a Syrian soldier had fired on an Israeli patrol boat that had come too close to a section of the shore patrolled by Syria. The bullet had scraped some paint off of the bottom of the boat. What is also not widely known is that there were peace negotiations between the two. The talks broke down over water rights. Israel insisted on full and exclusive ownership of the Sea of Galilee, Lake Huleh and the stretch of the Jordan River that runs between them, maintaining that these waters were part of the land of Israel. Syria insisted that these were international waters, and legally, since the shores were part of the DMZ and not taken successfully by either party during the war, this was a legally tenable position. Syria tried to sweeten the pot by offering to absorb 300,000 Palestinian refugees. Israel refused. However talks did occur, there was a willing partner across the table from Israel, and claims that Syria refused to negotiate are not true. Given the constant military provocations which Israel inflicted on Syria, the latter deserves credit for sitting down at the table in an effort to reach a settlement. Egypt Following the 1948, King Farouk of Egypt refused to negotiate peace with Israel, but was soon deposed in an army coup (known as the 'Young Officers' Coup') lead by Gamel Abdel Nasser. Nasser's star was rising in the Arab world and there was talk that he might do for Arab nationalism what Attaturk had done for Turkey. Ben Gurion became paranoid that Nasser would be able to unite the Arab countries in a renewed attack on Israel. He began working in the background to provoke an incident with Egypt which would let him attack and deal the Egyptian army a crippling blow. Ben Gurion had decided that it was better to engage in such a pre-emptive attack before Egypt was able to recover its military strength. In spite of Ben Gurion's fears, Nasser began to open 'back'channel' communications with Israel through various embassies and their respective foreign ministers. The talks had evolved to the point where the issues of importance had been defined and steps had been made towards negotiating resolution on some of them. Like Jordan and Syria, Egypt was making honest efforts at discussions towards a peace settlement. One item of great concern to Ben Gurion was Egypt's relationship with Britain, which had seen the development of the Suez Canal. In an effort to destabilize the Nasser government and cast it in a bad light in the eyes of the British, Ben Gurion sent secret agents into Cairo to put bombs in mailboxes and movie theatres and terrorize the population. The agents were caught and confessed. While telling the Israeli people that the agents were innocent and had been framed, Ben Gurion pleaded with Nasser, through the back channels, to spare the lives of the agents. Nasser said that he would do what he could, but made no promises. In the lead up to the trial, one of the agents committed suicide in prison. Two of the remaining 7 were condemned to death and executed; the other five were imprisonned. Although Egypt had executed all of a group of Arab terrorists who had been caught under similar circumstances in the previous year, Ben Gurion raged that he had been betrayed and vowed revenge. Egypt had been the recipient of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees during the 1948, and put them into a huge refugee camp in Gaza. Although Egypt did what it could to prevent infiltration, refugees still managed to infiltrate across the border. In one incident, some infiltrators had stolen some papers and killed a bicyclist. In revenge, Israel sent Arial Sharon with an armed force to attack the Egyptian police post at Gaza. Fifty Egyptian soldiers were killed. This effectively killed the back channel negotiations with Egypt and Nasser came to view the Israelis as untrustworthy and malevolent. However these were minor incidents compared to what Israel did next. Nasser had alienated the French by providing support to FLN rebels fighting against the French in Algeria. Seeing an opportunity, Israel cozied up to France and was able to develop a very strong relationship based on the principle that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. As a result of this relationship, France sold Israel a number of Mirage Jets which guaranteed its military superiority over not only the Egyptians, but everyone else in the region as well. France also supplied Israel with a nuclear reactor which it was able to parley into a full nuclear program ultimately resulting in Israel's development of nuclear weapons. Israel has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation agreement so often used against any other state that tries to develop nuclear weapons. With the French relationship in its pocket, Israel was soon blessed with more opportunity when Nasser made the mistake of nationalizing the Suez canal, which antagonized the British. Israel, France and Britain plotted to attack Egypt and get rid of Nasser. The plan called for Israel to attack while the British and French provided military and other support. Although Ben Gurion was not too happy at having to do the dirty work, he did not hesitate to point out that oil had been discovered in the Sinai and that were the oil in Israel's hands, it would be happy to make deals with France for its refinement and sale. In a surpise attack, known to history as the Suez Crisis, Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula and soundly defeated the Egyptian army, which retreated across the canal leaving behind large amounts of military equipment and armaments, which the IDF destroyed. Ben Gurion triumphantly declared the start of the Third Jewish Kingdom in the Knesset. The world was outraged, including both the US and the USSR. The USSR, who had just developed nuclear weapon capability, threatened to attack Israel with missiles. The US stayed ominously silent. Ben Gurion told the British and the French that he thought the Russians were bluffing and suggested that the value of the oil in the Sinai made the international outcry worthwhile. The astonished French ambassador responded "You are going to risk having your cities destroyed for a little oil?". They told Israel that they did not think the Russians were bluffing and advised that they were withdrawing their support. Israel was forced to retreat leaving the Sinai as it was prior to the invasion. Following this, Israel was almost completely alienated from the rest of the world. Sources... Tom Segev; One Palestine Complete; Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate; Metropolitan Books Avi Shlaim; The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World; W.W. Norton & Company Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
M.Dancer Posted October 4, 2006 Report Posted October 4, 2006 Best cut and paste...ever Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Rue Posted October 4, 2006 Report Posted October 4, 2006 I think Higgly wants to counter my last efforts that debated what he said but received no responses. At least he has tried this time to find something other then his personal opinions to back up his views. Its a start. Quote
Rue Posted October 4, 2006 Report Posted October 4, 2006 Well Higgly thanks for the cut and pastes out of context. Now I will dissect what you say word for word to show people how you distort information to fit it into your pre-supposition and simplistic formula that Palestine good, Israel bad, and your not so disguised contempt for Judaism and things Jewish. But I know Higgly you are simply stating facts. "In 1947 the UN partitioned British Mandate Palestine into Arab and Jewish areas. In 1948 Israel declared itself a state." Nice Higgly except things did not just suddenly begin because you want it to, in 1947. In fact Higgly why not go back to 1920 when Christians in the Middle East were awarded Lebanon and Muslims were awarded Iraq and Syria by the same colonialists, the British and French who divided the area into artificial borders in the first place. As part of their dividing the Middle East into little boxes, you also forgot to mention Syria and Lebanon were turned into French colonies, and Iraq was turned into a convenient British colony. What you also forget of course, is that in 1920 the League of Nations, the precursor to the UN, first coined the phrase Palestinian mandate in specific reference for finding Jews a homeland in the Middle East as the final component to the Christian, Muslim, Jewish puzzle. What you also forget is that in 1920, the British offered to pursue that mandate and find the Jews a homeland, then less then two years later, deliberately broke that mandate and took 77% of Palestine, and turned it into TransJordan and awarded it to the Muslims. What Higgly also conveniently has skipped over is as follows; The Muslim world rejected the notion of Jews gettting homeland as suggested by the League of Nations in 1920 and in April 1920, when the British carved out "Palestine: Moslems reacted in protest immediately. It is an historic fact that Muslims rejected the delineation of Palestine in 1920 and in fact that Muslims west of Jordan retained their allegiance to the great-great-uncle of Jordan's King Abdullah II who was then ruling in Damscus. At that time they identified themselves as Southern Syrians. In early July of 1920, the French then overthrew King Abdullah and then and only as a direct result of this French action, did Muslims then come up with a new notion to establish another Muslim state Higgly likes to call Palestine. I will disect the rest of Higgly's simplistic and selective pastes in the next reply. Quote
Rue Posted October 4, 2006 Report Posted October 4, 2006 " Since 1948 a number of myths have been promulgated by Israel and by its supporters. Many of these articles of 'mythinformation' (my word) form a core part of Israeli propoganda and are still being taught in Israeli schools and quoted by important members of the Canadian press. The Myths. 1) During the 1948 war, the objective of the Arabs was to destroy Israel and, although the Arab armies greatly outnumbered the Jewish fighters, Israel prevailed in a desperate and heroic David and Goliath struggle through pluck, determination and guile. 2) Immediately before and during the war, approximately 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled Palestine because the Arab attackers told them to leave or be slaughtered. They became refugees living in the adjacent countries. 3) Following the war, Israel made every effort to negotiate a peace but the Arabs refused to talk and were completely intransigent." All of the above quote pasted by Higgly is an example of going to an essay by someone who has made the supposition that Israel should not exist and now is working backwords, revising historic facts to suit their supposition. The above wording is necessarily subjective and opinions not based on historic fact but someone's personal political views coloured by his supposition Israel should not exist. So I will merely respond to it by saying, Higgly you have to do better then quote someone's opinions. Try look at history and what actually happened. If you do you probably will see there is no right and wrong, just versions of the same event depending on who is telling the story. In your approach you actually believe one side knows the truth and the other does not. I would suggest your version is just that, an abnreviated, selective version of what actually happened and I will carefully explain why. "The Facts. 1) During the 1948 war, the objective of the Arabs was to destroy Israel and, although the Arab armies greatly outnumbered the Jewish fighters, Israel prevailed in a heroic and desperate David and Goliath struggle through pluck, determination and guile. King Abdullah of Jordan, rather than wanting to destroy Israel, sought only to shore up his claim to the Arab parts of Palestine asssigned by the British as the Jordanian Protectorate - mostly the West Bank. Prior to the war he negotiated an agreement with Israeli emissary Golda Meir in which he agreed to respect Israel's borders as laid out in the UN partition agreement and he kept his word. Jordanian forces never attempted to cross the borders laid out in the partition resolution. Israel, on the other hand, attacked areas under Jordan's protectorate and tried to take land from Abdullah. At the end of the war, Israel held nearly twice as much land as had been granted it under the partition agreement, but was prevented from taking key strategic sites in the Jordanian Protectorate by an effective Jordanian defense. History also shows that Jewish fighters outnumbered the Arabs significantly throughout the war. At the start in May of 1948, there were 35,000 Jewish fighters against 25,000 Arab fighters. By the end of the year, Israel had 96,000 active fighters. Although the Arabs had increased their forces throughout, they never came close to matching the numerical strength of the Israeli forces. In addition, during this time. Israel was able to substantioally increase its armament by shipments from Czechoslovakia. " The above Higgly is a classic example of someone trying to revise what historically happened and re-mold it to fit their personal political views. To start with history has not shown anything new. What is obvious Higgly and you can try re-write it or deny it, is that the Arab League of Nations and countries that did attack Israel were clearly agreed on one thing-that there should be no country for Jews called Israel under any circumstance and that the intent of their war was to prevent Jews from having a country. So to suggest they had other interests is silly. Of course they did but they were all united in the common agreement that Israel should not exist. No one Higgly would be silly enough to suggest Muslims all think the same and had the same interests other then one thing-they agreed a Jewish state should not and could not exist. The comments you have quoted about King Abdullah are highly selective and of course reflect an opinion that makes no sense. What Higgly and the essay he has pasted out of context selectively forget is as folows; During the Third phase of the War of Independence from May 14 1948 to June 11, 1948, As well as being attacked by 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops, 4,000 Transjordanian troops invaded the Corpus Separatum region of Israel/Palestine which consisted of Jerusalem and its surrounding area. The Trans-Jordanians were also supported by volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. What Higgly also conveniently skips over is that in fact a telegram was sent from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General on the 15th of May 1948, whereby the Arab League stated they rejected the idea of having Muslim and Jewish countries in Palestine (in fact the 23% of Palestine that remained since Britain alreay awarded 77% of Palestine to TransJordan). The Arab League stated they would create a "United State of Palestine" instead of the Jewish and Arab, two-state, UN Plan. The Arab League said that since the Arab majority was not Jewish, they would not allow a Jewisg state under any circusmatnce and that they all had the mandate including Transjordan to intervene to protect Arab lives and property. That is there in their speech. So to pretend Transjordan was not part of this is silly. In fact along with Israel, botht he US and the Soviets called the Arab League states' entry into Palestine wasillegal aggression and to be specific the UN secretary general Trygve Lie described it and I quote; "the first armed aggression which the world had seen since the end of the [second World] War." TransJordanian in fact shelled Jerusalem in 1948. It is a fact that the heaviest fighting occured in Jerusalem and on or about the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv road, between Transjordan's Arab Legion and the Israeli forces. In fact King Abdullah ordered General John Glubb Pasha, the commander of the Transjordanian Arab Legion, to enter Jerusalem on May 17, 1948 and history records heavy house-to-house fighting between May 17 and 28. The Arab Legion succeeded in expelling Israeli forces from the Arab quarters of Jerusalem as well as the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. In fact all Jewish inhabitants of the Old City were expelled by the Jordanians. Finally the comments that Israel held twice as much land as was proposed to it in the Befour declaration of course ignores the fact that 77% of Palestine was already illegally handed over to Muslims in Transjordan. In fact the 1949 to 1967 border of Israel did not include the West Bank which Jordan seized illegally and was never mandated to them. And no one denies the fact that Israel's initial army of 20,000 frew to 108,000 by the end of the war. Jews came from all over the world to make a stand and so did many non Jews who felt Israel was an under-dog and being treated unfairly. Now I will respond to the rest in another post as I need to pee and there is so much misleading info there is a limit to how much I can counter at one time. Quote
Riverwind Posted October 4, 2006 Report Posted October 4, 2006 Now I will respond to the rest in another post as I need to pee and there is so much misleading info there is a limit to how much I can counter at one time.I looked forward to your further rebuttal. I was wondering if you could address this apparent contradiction:Isreal asserts that it did not expel the Palestinians which implies they would have been welcome to live within the Israel state if they stayed in 1948. However, in 2006 Israel insists that these same people are not welcome to live in Israel because they would undermine the Jewish state. Seems to me that if the Palestinians had stayed then Israel would have to deal with the same demographic problem that it uses as an excuse to deny their return today. What changed? Why was the demographic problem not a concern in 1948 but such a concern now? Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Rue Posted October 4, 2006 Report Posted October 4, 2006 "Historical records show that the majority of Palestinian Arabs were deliberately expelled by Jewish fighters. " Of course the above is incorrect. In fact 300,000 Palestinian Arabs left without ever seeing any Israeli soldiers for the simple reason that a lovely gentleman by the name of Dr. Hussein planted a rumour that Jews (Zionists) had massacered Palestinians causing a mass exodus long before 1948 and he did so delibereately on behalf of the Arab League. What is also a fact is the Arab League on loud-speakers, in speeches, in newspapers, and on its radio, told Arabs to leave stating the war would be quick and they could return once the Jews were removed. So to try revise what happened and make it sound like Jews stood there and said leave is absolute b.s. More to the point according to the UN, yes 711,000 Palestinian Arabs were displaced. How about the 900,000 Jews that after 1948 were thrown out of all the Muslim countries of the Middle East and had their property seized not to mention the countless of other Jews not counted in this 900,000 because they had already been killed? See in the revisionist history essays, we simply ignore that of those 900,000 displaced Jews, 600,000 of them resettled in Israel while 300,000 resettled in Europe and North America. We simply forget that in fact 200,000 more Jews were displaced then Palestinians because if you buy into the myth that Palestinians are victims and Jews are the opressors you have to conveniently skip over such facts otherwise it would make no sense and you would come to the conclusion as do most rational people that there was no bad vs. good guy in Israel as Higgly and his pasted essays would suggest-but there were two sets of people caught up in historic events that displaced them both. So let us once and for all deal directly with this notion head on that Israel displaced Palestine. You want to talk myths-then let us talk myths. Palestine never existed as a nation. Anyone who knows anything about Middle East Hisory knows that. The name Palestine is a geographic term. Here is the part of history Higgly and the revisionists like to skip over; The notion of Arabs wanting a seperate Palestinian nation is for Western consumption. That is what they tell the West because that is of course what people like Higgly want to here. But if you live in the Middle East, if you read Arab newspapers, listen to their t.v. and radio, read their literature and speeches you would know when Muslims talk to each other about Palestine it has a different context. Here is what Adbdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader said about Palestine when speeking to the Peel Commission in 1937; " There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria." Or here is what the representative of the Arab League said to the United Nations in his statement in May 1947; "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria... ...politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." Or here is what Ahmed Shuqeiri, the Chairman of the PLO to the UN Security Council said; "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria." In the real Muslim world, borders are an absurdity. Muslims do not seperate state from religion. The idea of borders was imposed after World War One by the British and French carving the Middle East into little colonies they could control. Before then Palestine was an empty set of swamps and bogs, and desolate and simply the route between Cairo and Damascus. What we do know is the Turks ruled Palestine for four hundred years and the only interuption in their rule was from 1832-1840 when Muhammet Ali, an Egptian conquered Palestine, Syria and parts of Asia Minor. The Ottomans with both British and Russian military help then retook control of what you call Palestine. It is an historic fact that the Ottomans did not rule Palestine as one country or nation because they cut up the land into villayets (districts) whose boundaries constantly changed. In fact it was after the original Ottoman conquest in 1517, of what you call Palestine which cut it into four districts and then incorporated them under the province of Damascus and ruled them from Istanbul. At the beginning of the Ottoman era, it was estimated 1,000 Jewish families lived in the country. By the mid-16th century, the population of Jews rose to 10,000. As the Ottoman Empire eroded the geographic area of Palestine was neglected and forgotten. This is why by the end of the 18th century, the majority of the land was owned by absentee landlords and who then rented it out to poor tenant farmers. During this time period The forests of Galilee and the Carmel mountain range were destroyed and what was farm land turned into swamp and desert. It wasn't until the 19th century suddenly Britain and France became interested because of the opening of the Suez Canal for trade and as more and more Jews sought refuge from persecution in Europe or from dhimmitude in the rest of the Middle East, the Jewish population began to grow, and this is why by 1906, the majority of the population in Jerusalem was Jewish not Muslim. Now what revisionists like to do is try poortray a victim, Palestinian Arabs, supported by benevolent Arab countries trying to protect them from unreasonable Jews trying to steal their land, but it is a myth. If the Arab League was as benevolent as it is portrayed ask yourself, why did they never resettle Palestinians in other countries? Why was Arafat expelled from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Tunisia? More to the point do you think Syria, Jordan and Egypt even sympathize with Palestinians? Well let us go back to what Palestinians think of Palestine; the former military commander of the PLO as well as member of the PLO Executive Council, Zuhair Muhsin made this statement in the early 1970's: "There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity....yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel." You see in the Middle East, Palestine is a code word for ridding the Middle East of Jews, but after that no one stops to think what it would really mean after that other then they want to swallow up the Palestinians and simply control the former Israel. This is why for example the former Syrian President, Hafez Assad said; "Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people." and he also stated; "Palestine is a principal part of Southern Syria, and we consider that it is our right and duty to insist that it be a liberated partner of our Arab homeland and of Syria." This why there was a major civil war in Jordan in 1967 called the Black Sabbath uprising in which Palestinians the majority of the population in Jordan were prevented from taking control and deposing King Hussein. Jordan did not want Palestinians in its country and it expelled them. Syria? Syria expelled Arafat and the PLO and Assad and Arafat openly feuded precisely because Syria felt Israel should be part of its country along with Lebanon and to this day feels that way. Lebanon? Lebanon expelled Arafat as well because the civil war between shiite and sunni Muslims and between those two and Christians and Druze became bloody and the PLO tried to seize control of the country. Tunisia? Same thing. The Arab world is not opening its arms welcoming Palestinians as brothers? Palestinian leaders and Palestinians are considered second class citizens in the Arab world and are seen as Israel's problem. Israel is a convenient scapegoat because the Arab League then does not have to examine its legal role in encouraging Palestinians to leave and telling them they could return soon, or its role in deliberately expelling 900,000 Jews from Muslim countries making it impossible for Israel to resettle Palestinians when it was faced with 600,000 displaced Jews. This is the fallacy. People like Higgly want yout o believe evil Zionists kicked out 711,000 Palestinians but they want you to suspend any reference to the 600,000 Jews who fled to Israel after 1948. What Higgly would also have you ignore is the fact that after World War Two the Grand Mufti of Jerusalemwho had been a frequent guest of Hitler, as was the tradition since the 1930's, called on all MUslims to embrace Nazi anti-semitism, and see the waqr against Israel as not just a war against ISrael but of all Jews everywhere. This is why to this day, the trendy leftists and Higgly will say, this is not about Jews its about zionism only, Palestinians want to live peacefully with Jews in a secular state, but forget that there is no secular state in the Middle East because Sharia law and dhimmitude does not permit Jews to live as equal citizens or own land without paying a special tax and remaining second class. It also forgets that on every t.v. and radio station and in every newspaper, Muslims are taught that their war is not just with Israel but Jews everywhere and that the holocaust did not happen and Hitler was a great guy. Mohamed Abbas the supposed moderate leader of the PLO wrote his thesis on why the holocaust never happened. Iran just ran a symposium inviting scholars from all over the world to visit and present essays on why the holocaust didn't happen and ran a cartoon contest seeing who could depict the most insulting charactiture of a Jew. On Jordanian t.v. in a supposedly moderate Muslim nation, are open discussions by Muslim clerics as to why Jews are infidel and how the coming war will wipe them all out. Children's t.v. shows depict Jews as raping Muslim women, making blood from Muslim children for Matzah at passover, etc. Egyptian t.v. is full of movies and debates depicting Jews as vermin. On and on it goes. Hamas is not talking about a secular state. Its charter like Hezbollah's calls on a holy war against Jews world-wide. Yah for people like Higgly who have a preconceived notion that Jews are bad, he will cut and paste and find essays to suit his preconceived notion that Jews are not special and are unreasonable, etc. The fact is however quite simple. Right or wrong 3,500 years of persecution and slaughter of Jews leading to the holocaust created a fait accompli as to the fate of Jews. So did throwing out 900,000 Jews from the rest of the Middle East and so does the fact that in Sharia law and the system of dhimmitude or Muslim apartheid, non Muslims can't live in the Muslim world without persecution and intolerance. This talk of a secular state in an area of the world where Muslims kill each other daily is a laugh. The only thing that has prevented the Muslim world from erupting in a massive internal civil war destroying itself is the one thing they can all agree on, ridding the Middle East of Jews. When Iran's economy collapses, of course its leader will make all kinds of anti-Zionist statements. First thing you do when your country is corupt and totalitarian and its economhy collapses is to pull the Jewish scapegoating out of the hat to distract. The Muslim world has embraced Nazism. It was not an accident that so many Nazis settled in Damascus post World War Two and created many of the splinter groups that today call for the destruction of Israel. So when Higgly tries to paint the Arab world as a bunch of heroes helping a victimized people remember one thing, Palestinians have victimized themselves by choosing violence and the same Arab countries that tell the West they care about Palestinians secretly exchange intelligence with Israel as to Hamaz and Hezbollah and fear Arab nationalism as much if not more then the Israelis. If you think Syria openly is at war with the Muslim Brotherhood and so is Egypt. Saudi Arabia could topple at any time. Jordan is kept together thanks to MI-6 and Israeli help in keeping nationalists in the country under watch. Lebanon has now turned to France in a desperate attempt to remove itself from the clutches of Hezbollah and Syria. Iraq is condemned to being split in 3 abd becoming a series of fragmented mini states. Afghanistan is all about getting back to Sharia law despite our naive efforts to turn it into a democracy. Iran? Iran is typical of what Hezbollah and Hamas want, theocratic states that do not allow freedom of speech. So let us stop pretending this is good v.s. bad. This has become Jews in Israel who can go no where v.s. Palestinians who are being used as pawns by Hamas, Hezbollah and the Arab League. It is about the US desperately trying to counter extreme militancy with an Israeli presence while at the same time propping up corupt oil regimes. Its about France openly funding terrorist organizations thinking it will placate their Muslims back home and get them influence over oil. Its about Britain going to Libya and worshipping Ghaddafi's feet so he would turn the oil pipe-line back on. Its about Algeria killing 100,000 of its fellow citizens in a civil war. It is about Syria shooting 10,000 civilians because Muslim Brotherhood members were in the villages with these civilians and while Syria loves to state how evil Israel is, unlike Israel which has its soldiers die going door to door, does not worry about such things. It is not black and white. Quote
Higgly Posted October 5, 2006 Author Report Posted October 5, 2006 Well Higgly thanks for the cut and pastes out of context. Now I will dissect what you say word for word to show people how you distort information to fit it into your pre-supposition and simplistic formula that Palestine good, Israel bad, and your not so disguised contempt for Judaism and things Jewish. Rue, whenever an Israelite such as yourself starts playing the anti-semitism card, all I see is a little white flag of surrender. My sources for the post were two well-researched books by recognized and respected Jewish historians - Segev is from Hebrew University and Shlaim is at Oxford. Both worked from primary historical documents - cabinet papers, letters, diaries, published speeches, what have you. This is solid historical research. As for the rest of your first post, the key phrase is "a homeland for the Jews in Palestine". Neither the Balfour declaration nor any decision by the League of nations made any statements about turning all of Palestine into a homeland for the Jews. This was strictly a Zionist interpretation and not one that was shared by anyone else - viz. both the British and the UN proposals for partition. The theme that comes through again and again in these books is that the Zionists knew what they were doing was unfair to the Arabs of Palestine, that the Arabs would resist, and that the only way they could achieve their aims was by constructing an 'Iron Wall of military might'. Although more moderate Jews were willing to accept a shared state, the Zionists constantly pushed for one which would be exclusively Jewish or at least controlled by Jews and which would require a priori the expulsion of Arabs from their homelands. While discussing this actively amongst themselves, the Zionists hid their intentions from the Arabs, even negotiating agreements saying that their plans would have no negative effect on them (such as Chaim Weitzmann's agreement with Feisal). It was only when the Arabs finally realized what was coming, did they start to react violently against it. Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
Rue Posted October 5, 2006 Report Posted October 5, 2006 "Rue, whenever an Israelite such as yourself starts playing the anti-semitism card, all I see is a little white flag of surrender." I stated and I state again if you enter into discussions about the state of Israel and use that as a platform to criticize the Jewish religion and Jews I will call you on it. Your little ethnic dig is telling Higgly. "My sources for the post were two well-researched books by recognized and respected Jewish historians - Segev is from Hebrew University and Shlaim is at Oxford. Both worked from primary historical documents - cabinet papers, letters, diaries, published speeches, what have you. This is solid historical research." Well actually what you did Higgly was to go out and find two historians that opine the version of history you think is the right one and of course are now tryying to infer because you could cut and paste out of context what these two historians said, that everything you say is the truth and everything I say is wrong. Well to start off with if someone wants to get an idea of how many modern jewish historians there are including the two Higgly has quoted you can go to; www.reference.com/browse/wiki/List_of_Jewish_historians. You will see there are more then these two historians out there and if you try make an effort to read more then just anti-Israeli slanted historians you can come across with different information, assumptions and facts. Here are some jewish historian sites where the writers offer differing views on the History of Israel; www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/lipstadt.html - yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300072163 www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/6953.html www.history.upenn.edu/faculty/ruderman.htm - www.history.upenn.edu/faculty/ruderman.htm - mj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/4/2/231.pdf You will see very quickly that all Higgly has done is quote some historians to his liking. As I have tried to explain to Higgly there is no right and wrong in history just as there is no right and wrong in the Palestine conflict. There are versions of the same events and of course different views as to legal issues and as to what happened. Higgly continues to infer he knows the truth and there is but one version of the truth. This is precisely why I took the time to respond to the cut and paste and information he took out of context and filled in the gaps. Everything I rebutted with comes from; www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ http://www.albany.edu/history/middle-east/israel.htm www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_timeline.htm - . I encourage anyone to take what I said, take what Higgly said, and compare for yourselves which information is more accurate and provides the most information as opposed to only one side of it. "As for the rest of your first post, the key phrase is "a homeland for the Jews in Palestine". Neither the Balfour declaration nor any decision by the League of nations made any statements about turning all of Palestine into a homeland for the Jews. This was strictly a Zionist interpretation and not one that was shared by anyone else - viz. both the British and the UN proposals for partition." Again Higgly the above comment is false and I refer to the contents of the leage of Nations Palestine mandate that can be found in its entirety at http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/1922_MANDATE/1922_mandate.asp, but I have reprinted the relevant articles to show why what Higgly said is just not true; Article 4. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. |Back to top | Article 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power. Article 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. | Higgly trying to revise history is one thing, trying to deny cerain things do not exist is another. If you want be to treat you respectfully, then please don't make such statements because you are either deliberately fabricating falsehoods or are talking off the top of your head. Either way please take the time to read about what it is you are making pronoucements about to make sure what you are saying is accurate. You didn't present an opinion, you presented something that is not true as if it was a fact. "The theme that comes through again and again in these books is that the Zionists knew what they were doing was unfair to the Arabs of Palestine, that the Arabs would resist, and that the only way they could achieve their aims was by constructing an 'Iron Wall of military might'. " That Higgly is precisely the point. You are reading essays that present a particular version of what happened and you are jumping to the conclusion that because this version has been written it is the only one that should be accepted. There are of course an equal number of books that would also indicate Zionists were sympathetic to Arabs and wanted to live in peace with them but found themselves rejected and the target of violence and war and that there was of course another way to deal with jews in Israel other then with violence and war. The web sites I listed above are just a few examples. Most of the historians you will find on the list unlike Higgly believe that there are two sides to the Palestine-Israel conflict and of course if you have preconceived political biases as to who is right and who is wrong, it will reflect in the way you restate history in books-a point Higgly keeps missing. "Although more moderate Jews were willing to accept a shared state, the Zionists constantly pushed for one which would be exclusively Jewish or at least controlled by Jews and which would require a priori the expulsion of Arabs from their homelands." Higgly the above generalization reflects your personal subjective opinion and has no more validity then if I wrote; " although moderate Muslims are willing to recognize an Israeli state, Muslim nationalists constantly push for a country that will be exclusively Muslim.... Most importantly Higgly you let it slip again. Instead of talking about Israelis, you use the word JEWS. Ooopsy. Slipped again did we? And just for the record Higgly its dangerous generalizing what you think moderate Jews and Israelis think. Most of us Jews and Israelis will tell you there is an expression, 2 Jews, thousands of opinions. Please don't think Higgly for one second you think you can speak on behalf of Jews and Israelis and conveniently lump their opinions into neat categories. It is absurd as trying to do the same with the Arab peoples. "While discussing this actively amongst themselves, the Zionists hid their intentions from the Arabs, even negotiating agreements saying that their plans would have no negative effect on them (such as Chaim Weitzmann's agreement with Feisal). It was only when the Arabs finally realized what was coming, did they start to react violently against it." This again Higgly is another one of your subjective opinions that does not reflect what actually happened. As is the case in any conflict, both sides were not able to enter into agreements. Jews were very open and blatant about their desire to want a homeland. It was never hidden and to suggest it was is absurd...just as absurd as it would be to say Arabs hid their contempt for the concept of a Jewish homeland. Now Higgly I did take the time to carefully fill in the gaps you missed in my responses. if you want to turn this into yet another Jerry Falwell type exercise of you having a monopoly on what happened, I can only laugh and continue to counter what you say, when it is absurd or not true or misleading. Its fun! Quote
Rue Posted October 5, 2006 Report Posted October 5, 2006 "Isreal asserts that it did not expel the Palestinians which implies they would have been welcome to live within the Israel state if they stayed in 1948. However, in 2006 Israel insists that these same people are not welcome to live in Israel because they would undermine the Jewish state. Seems to me that if the Palestinians had stayed then Israel would have to deal with the same demographic problem that it uses as an excuse to deny their return today. What changed? Why was the demographic problem not a concern in 1948 but such a concern now?" I will answer your questions which deal with two issues. Let's deal with the second part of your question. Anyone who studies Middle East politics and the future of Israel knows that if Israel is to remain a democratic state and the majority of its population becomes Muslim, this makes remaining a Jewish state problematic. That is the irony. In the Muslim world, since countries are not democratic and practice dhimmitude or religious apartheid and do not seperate Islam from the State, this will never be an issue. Likewise Riverwind, in a Christian country, where Christians just assume they are a majority, they too do not worry about such things. But here is how I answer that question Riverwind. Hwo do Christians in Canada feel when they see that the majority of Canadians no longer want Christian things in the law or at school? How do Canadians feel when they see Muslims or people from other religions coming to Canada and demanding to opt out of values and traditions that Canadians take for granted? See it is for me highly amusing to see people point out what Israel faces if it wants to remain a Jewish state, because its usually the same people who if their own culture is in danger are the first to squawk and complain about immigration and those other people moving in the neighbourhood. For me Riverwind as a Jewish Canadian, I choose not to live in Israel for the same reason I do not want religion in schools or in my government. I prefer to live in a mluti-cultural society where people of all faiths and political beliefs can live together. In an ideal world, the Muslim religion would be seperated from state, and Muslims would not follow Sharia law and impose dhimmitude and would promote democratic multi-cutlural societies and Jews, Christians, Muslims, Zoroastreans, Hindus, Buddists, Communists, Trade Unionists, Feminists, Gays, etc., would all be treated fairly and as equals and there would be human rights codes and tribunals, etc. It aint gonna happen. So yah, Israelis know, that to retain their Jewish identity and prevent themselves from being swallowed up in a Muslim culture that treats them as second class citizens and has no history of religious tolerance-it will have to maintain a seperate life and society from Muslims. One day, maybe Muslims and Jews will not need to live in religious states. Until that time, to suggest Muslims can do it but Jews shouldn't is a double standard and as hippocritical as say in Ontario where we fund a Catholic school board, but no other religious school board. It is no different then the aboriginal people saying, to preserve our culture, we do not want to be assimilated. It is no different then Quebecers who say, we do not want to be swallowed up in anglo society, we wish to preserve certain distinct attributes of our culture. Why it is such a big deal when Jews try to do it is beyond me. I personally think, it is because deep down inside, Christians can not accept the notion of Jews as equals and wanting the same things-freedom, and a country. Why? Because Christians take it for granted they dominate the political institutions in the countries they live in and if they don't-they act no differently then Jews. Now tell me would you tell Christians in Sudan because they are a minority, they have no right to live apart from the Muslim majority? How selective are we with nationalism? What I am saying necessarily is this, if we are to be logical and fair, either Muslims, Christians and Jews, all must live world-wide in non religious states where all are treated equal, or if that is not possible, then stop with the double standard in suggesting only Muslims can have countries, but Jews can not. Now to answer the first part of your question; I don't think it is helpful in a meaningful dialogue as to the conflict in Israel and Palestine, to lump Israelis into one category and as having one opinion and all thinking the same way or denying Palestinians were expelled. Riverwind most Jewish historians, and especially those who you might want to say are sympathetic to Israel existing openly talk about the expulsion of Palestinians. It is a fact that Israel readily admits that 711,000 Palestinians were displaced as a result of Israel coming into existence. Where the debate comes Riverwind, is not in the fact that 711,000 end up displaced but in the manner in which the expulsions are depicted and in that regard one of the major points missed, is that the majority of Palestinians left based on two things; i-a false story planted by Dr. Hussein that Zionists massacered Palestinians, causing about 300,000 to flee before 1948, and the fact that the Arab league instructed Palestinians to leave telling them there would be a brief war, and they could come back after. If your point is it is unfair these Palestinians were displaced, of course it is. It is as unfair as any refugees displaced as a result of wars world-wide. But where the debate comes in is when we talk about the Palestine displacement, we also have to talk about 900,000 Jews thrown out of Muslim countries in the Middle East, of whom, 600,000 fleed to Israel. Yes in an ideal world, if those 600,000 had not been thrown out and been forced to live in Israel, ironically there would have been more of a possibility of taking back many of those 711,000 Palestinians. But here is the point. 77% of Palestine was given to Muslims in the country of Trans-Jordan in direct violation of the League of Nations mandate. with the remaining 23% of the land, had the Arabs followed the belfour declaration, they would have been given to additional enclaves and all Jews would have ended up with was a sliver of land. The Arab League chose to gamble and go all or nothing and reject that proposal. In hindsight I am sure they regret they made that decision but here we are 60 years later and the Muslim world is still refusing to accept it lost a war and that it can not remove Israel from existence and that is what it comes down to. This is not a matter of one side of victims. It is a matter of Jews and of Muslims who both live in the Middle East. Nothing is stopping Palestinians from starting a nation in the West Bank and the Gaza. Nothing prevented the Arab League from taking in Palestinians. The decision to continue to embrace violence and refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist is a political decision. Think about it. If Palestinians had used Ghandi's tactics think how different the situation would have turned out. Now when you talk about Palestinians being expelled, I would say most people agree both Palestinians and Jews, were displaced as a result of political events beyond both their control and the only solution today is to put the violence to an end, create a Palestinian state, learn to live with the Israeli state, forge an economic union and prosper through cooperation. Now I ask you who is running t.v. shows, radio shows, newspaper articles, symposiums, denying the holocaust, calling for the destruction of the State of Israel, calling on the attack of Jews world-wide? Do Israelis ask you to attack Muslims world-wide? You hear me saying we should wipe Muslims off the face of the earth? No what you hear from me and I dare say the majority of rational people whether they be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, what-ever, is that any organized religion breeds misunderstanding and intolerance. And if you are curious, in the synagogue I was a member of for awhile before I resigned, we prayed for peace with Palestinians and in our discussions with Muslims at peace and inter-cultural meetings, we made it clear we respected their right to want a country and to be left in peace and we would say we simply want the same thing. Moderate Muslims had no problem with that. I was part of a peace network that brought together Palestinians and Israelis. I know its possible. The problem River is that extremists as you know easily can sabotage the process. If you believe nothing else River believe this from me, I watched people blow up. Once you see both Palestinians and Israelis blow up into parts the same way from a bomb, if that doesn't teach you they both are equally as cursed and neither is right or wrong, I don't know what can. And so to answer you River, if you talk to Israelis, if you talk to Jewish historians, they don't deny Palestinians were expelled and that Palestinians today suffer. All they want you to do is not simplify it as being solely as the result of Israel existing. All they are asking you to do is look at all the factors including how Muslims do not get along with each other and how Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Yemen say one thing about Palestinian independence but say another when Westerners are not listening. In fact I would go so far as to say Arab nationalism frightens Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan far more then it does Israel. That is why for example, Saudi Arabia is about to embark on a very expensive project to build fences along the Iraq border and eventually will be what the French try convince the Lebanese and Syrians to do and exactly why Egypt spends quadra-billions a year in security to keep its people under strict control. Quote
Figleaf Posted October 5, 2006 Report Posted October 5, 2006 I encourage anyone to take what I said, take what Higgly said, and compare for yourselves which information is more accurate and provides the most information as opposed to only one side of it. Done. Despite the excess of tiresome, unfunny sniping you do, I compared your arguments to Higgly's and found his more convincing. The preponderance of your long-winded posts consist of dilatory appeals to highly subjective and ultimately out-moded and irrelevant historical interpretation, and doesn't meet the issues raised. Quote
Argus Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 Nah, Higgly's off his rocker. I don't think so, at least not entirely. Either he's a jew-hater - a strong possibility, or he's one of those zealous Israel haters inspired by years of close television coverage of the poor, ragged assed Arabs being beaten down by men in uniforms - you know, those evil soldiers. There are a lot of those people around. They really don't care or know much about the background. They just see civilians, or those who look like civilians, being "oppressed" by soldiers, and instinctively side with the civilian looking types. It's almost a universal instinct among bleeding heart liberals. As for all the drivel he's cut and pasted above; I haven't bothered to do more than very lightly skim it. It has no relevence to anything today. The UN created Israel and that's that. Whining about how unfair it might be is pointless. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other "nations" were created by the whims of the British or others. Does that make those states less legitimate today? Nope. Israel is a nation state and you can't turn back the clock. Have they been peaches and cream kindly towards their Arab neighbours? Nope. Have their Arab neighbours been to them? Nope, not by a long shot. But generally speaking, over the course of time, it has been Arab violence and Arab intransigance which has provoked violence and continued this as the world's longest running cold sore. Israel is a democracy with free elections and an independant judicial system. All their Arab neighbours are brutal dictators who murder and oppress their people. Not hard to figure out which side to support. As for the Palestinians, and their culture of violence, death and murder, they have no hope of a state that will be anything more than a poverty stricken ruin run by more dictators. The territory left after Jordan and Egypt stole big chunks is not enough to support an economically viable state. It has no resources to speak of, prescious little water, no industry, and anyone who was industrious or talented has fled to other countries. The best thing that could happen to them would be for Gaza to be absorbed by Egypt, and the rest by Jordan. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Higgly Posted October 6, 2006 Author Report Posted October 6, 2006 Rue I am going to try to get to all of your doggerel, but it will take time as you really do generate quite a heavy stream... All of the above quote pasted by Higgly is an example of going to an essay by someone who has made the supposition that Israel should not exist and now is working backwords, revising historic facts to suit their supposition. The above wording is necessarily subjective and opinions not based on historic fact but someone's personal political views coloured by his supposition Israel should not exist. This is an assumption made entirely on your part. I have never made any such statement. What I am doing here is arguing historical fact. You are jumping to self-drawn conclusions as an attack mechanism and trying to make me responsible for them. Psychologists have a name for it: projection. It's not a healthy sign Rue. I do note though your attempt to sneak in another one of the Israelite white flag issues - Israel's right to exist. Nice try Rue. So let's see, keeping track here. So far we have... 1) anti-semitism 2) Israel's right to exist The comments you have quoted about King Abdullah are highly selective and of course reflect an opinion that makes no sense. Which comments? Do you deny that Abdullah made a pact with Golda Meier to respect the borders of Israel? Did Abdullah's forces penetrate into any of the lands assigned to Israel by the UN partition? As well as being attacked by 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi, and 10,000 Egyptian troops, 4,000 Transjordanian troops invaded the Corpus Separatum region of Israel/Palestine which consisted of Jerusalem and its surrounding area. The Trans-Jordanians were also supported by volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen. I said 25,000 did I not? What Higgly also conveniently skips over is that in fact a telegram was sent from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General on the 15th of May 1948, whereby the Arab League stated they rejected the idea of having Muslim and Jewish countries in Palestine (in fact the 23% of Palestine that remained since Britain alreay awarded 77% of Palestine to TransJordan). The Arab League stated they would create a "United State of Palestine" instead of the Jewish and Arab, two-state, UN Plan. The Arab League said that since the Arab majority was not Jewish, they would not allow a Jewisg state under any circusmatnce and that they all had the mandate including Transjordan to intervene to protect Arab lives and property. That is there in their speech. So to pretend Transjordan was not part of this is silly. I pretty much thought it was a given that the Arabs attacked to destroy Israel. They did indeed intervene because they thought that imposing a Jewish state on an area that was by majority Arab was wrong and to protect he Arab majority of Palestine from massacre and expulsion. In fact along with Israel, botht he US and the Soviets called the Arab League states' entry into Palestine wasillegal aggression and to be specific the UN secretary general Trygve Lie described it and I quote; "the first armed aggression which the world had seen since the end of the [second World] War." Big deal. TransJordanian in fact shelled Jerusalem in 1948.It is a fact that the heaviest fighting occured in Jerusalem and on or about the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv road, between Transjordan's Arab Legion and the Israeli forces. In fact King Abdullah ordered General John Glubb Pasha, the commander of the Transjordanian Arab Legion, to enter Jerusalem on May 17, 1948 and history records heavy house-to-house fighting between May 17 and 28. The Arab Legion succeeded in expelling Israeli forces from the Arab quarters of Jerusalem as well as the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. If you look at the UN partition map, you will see that Jerusalem was to be a United Nations zone and that all of the land around it was to be Arab. If Israeli forces were in Jerusalem, they deserved to be shelled and by the way, Rue, they would have been in land still rightfully considered a Jordanian protectorate. In fact all Jewish inhabitants of the Old City were expelled by the Jordanians. Not at all Rue. They all fled because they were frightened into doing so by scare-mongering Jewish commanders By the way Rue, how many Jews was that? Would you mind providing a reference for that? Finally the comments that Israel held twice as much land as was proposed to it in the Befour declaration of course ignores the fact that 77% of Palestine was already illegally handed over to Muslims in Transjordan. No, I said twice as much as in the UN partition. Read the friggin' post, Rue! Illegally handed over according to whom? On the one hand you embue the British with the right to give a part of Palestine to the Jews and on the other you say it was illegal for them to give a part to the Arabs. You are punching yourself in the nose. In fact the 1949 to 1967 border of Israel did not include the West Bank which Jordan seized illegally and was never mandated to them. Seized illegally? According to whom? Now I will respond to the rest in another post as I need to pee and there is so much misleading info there is a limit to how much I can counter at one time. Funny how often my posts make you piss your pants Rue. I think I should serve notice Rue that this cannot go on forever. I am finding myself correcting errors in reading and perception due largely it seems to your inability to comprehend and to develop rational coherent thought. Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
Figleaf Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 Facts, reason, history, and sense. None of these mean anything in Bushist Likudistan, right President Argus? Quote
Higgly Posted October 6, 2006 Author Report Posted October 6, 2006 I don't think so, at least not entirely. Either he's a jew-hater - a strong possibility, or he's one of those zealous Israel haters inspired by years of close television coverage of the poor, ragged assed Arabs being beaten down by men in uniforms - you know, those evil soldiers. So with Rue's playing of the anti-semitism card, this makes two. Just keeping track here. 1) Anti-semitism (2) 2) Israel's right to exist (1) 3) Bleeding heart know-nothing Liberal (1) Did I miss any? Or are you accusing me of not respecting Israel's right to exist as well? I'm going to give you guys a name: the Mythectionists. It's a contraction of the words Mythinformation and Projectionist. Just like something Chomsky might do, no? Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
Argus Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 Facts, reason, history, and sense. None of these mean anything in Bushist Likudistan, right President Argus? History, especially history according to zealots, which is partly true, partly false, and mostly biased is of very little importance. As for reason and sense - I think I was using reason and sense. Mostly what he's using is emotional appeals based on an adolescent view of the world. Who gives a crap if some claim there were more Jews in the `48 fighting than some others say? Of what possible importance is that? What does it matter whether some dead Zionists wanted all of Palestine rather than half? Wahh! Wahh! It wasn't fair! Waaaah! Grow up. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 I don't think so, at least not entirely. Either he's a jew-hater - a strong possibility, or he's one of those zealous Israel haters inspired by years of close television coverage of the poor, ragged assed Arabs being beaten down by men in uniforms - you know, those evil soldiers. So with Rue's playing of the anti-semitism card, this makes two. Just keeping track here. 1) Anti-semitism (2) 2) Israel's right to exist (1) 3) Bleeding heart no-nothing Liberal (1) Did I miss any? Or are you accusing me of not respecting Israel's right to exist as well? I'm accusing you of wasting everyone's time. But what the hell - clearly yours isn't of any value, so carry on cut and pasting long-winded, snivelling rants about how the bedoins were done wrong in nineteen forty eight. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Higgly Posted October 6, 2006 Author Report Posted October 6, 2006 I'm accusing you of wasting everyone's time. But what the hell - clearly yours isn't of any value, so carry on cut and pasting long-winded, snivelling rants about how the bedoins were done wrong in nineteen forty eight. Nobody invited you here Argus. You are here entirely under your own power. You don't like it, then piss off. Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
Figleaf Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 History, especially history according to zealots, which is partly true, partly false, and mostly biased is of very little importance. Well, now that you've finally acknowledged that, perhaps your comments will be more worthwhile in the future. As for reason and sense - I think I was using reason and sense. Really? Then you have a lot to learn. Mostly what he's using is emotional appeals based on an adolescent view of the world. Hooey. Higgly's posts are fact-based and well argued. It is clearly you (and Rue) who react emotionally to this subject. Quote
Argus Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 I'm accusing you of wasting everyone's time. But what the hell - clearly yours isn't of any value, so carry on cut and pasting long-winded, snivelling rants about how the bedoins were done wrong in nineteen forty eight. Nobody invited you here Argus. You are here entirely under your own power. You don't like it, then piss off. Just call me mocking bird. I love to poke holes in the laughingly idiotic positions of self-righteous zealots. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Figleaf Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 I love to poke holes in the laughingly idiotic positions of self-righteous zealots. Poke holes? But you've done nothing of the kind. Good grief! Quote
Remiel Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 How does Israel fight in the propaganda side of the war? What positive actions do they actual take for Palestinians? Any? The problem I see with expecting Palestinians to be the instigators of peace is that they have no power. I mean, say for a moment that God/Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh or whatever your name for him/her/it is blessed us and Palestinians miraculously stopped fighting all at once. What power do they have to compel Israel to keep its part of the bargain and give them back their share of the land, and their sovereignty, and their rights? None. That is the problem I have with thinking any solution that involves Palestinians completely capitullating is even remotely realistic. I am really trying to look at this from a more neutral stand point, but who knows... I'm not sure that we can even see the light and the end of the tunnel as things are, let alone reach it. Quote
Higgly Posted October 6, 2006 Author Report Posted October 6, 2006 Yes it was remarkable to see members of the Sharon government routinely showing up on CNN demanding that the Palestinians take responsibility for Israeli security while the IDF was attacking Palestinian police posts and repeatedly violating cease fires. Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
Rue Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 "I think I should serve notice Rue that this cannot go on forever. I am finding myself correcting errors in reading and perception due largely it seems to your inability to comprehend and to develop rational coherent thought. " That is it Higgly> The best you can do is name call? O.k. your pee pee is bigger then mine. Settled. Now if someone wants to debate what I have been stated, other then simply to say I am wrong and they are right, I would be pleased too debate with them. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.