Israel

[M.Dancer]

Canoe is not Canwest Global? Go back to jail. Do not pass Go. No wonder you are citing internet sources. You haven't a clue.

You smert.

Much smerter than I.....

[scribblet]

Then when confronted with the work of a historian or some actual documentation, the 'Israelonly' gang resorts to name calling/smear, constantly displaying the weakness, in their own 'arguements'. If one can call irrational claptrap, an arguement?

They all do it. Name calling, smearing. If we were identified by our actual names here, a libel lawyer could have a field day with the pro-Israel gang.

That thought has crossed my mind so many times!

and isn't it lucky for them?!

I wouldn't hesitate for a second, for as much money as I could get, either.

Maybe you guys should start looking in a mirror and quit with the smears and name calling, you've managed to bring these forums down to a real low.

[M.Dancer]

THe Ottoman Turks, the British and the Jordanians all granted land titles to Palestinian Arabs in the same way that you have title to the house you paid the mortgage on. Recently leaked Israeli government documents show that 45% of the land under illegal (Geneva Conventions) Israeli West Bank settlements is owned by Palestinian Arabs and 80% of the land under Ma'ale Adummin is owned by them.

My borther owns land in Florida. Therefore that land is now part of Canada......

[scribblet]

actually the case of distortions , lies firmly on the side of the 'Israelonly' gang, who seem to only use , 'exaggerations and misrepresentations,' to distort, lie, contort and generally revise , history.

Then when confronted with the work of a historian or some actual documentation, the 'Israelonly' gang resorts to name calling/smear, constantly displaying the weakness, in their own 'arguements'. If one can call irrational claptrap, an arguement?

Actually, the case of distortions lies firmly on the side of the apologists for terrorism gang - - but don't let facts get in the way, just believe your one 'claptrap'

[kuzadd]

actually the case of distortions , lies firmly on the side of the 'Israelonly' gang, who seem to only use , 'exaggerations and misrepresentations,' to distort, lie, contort and generally revise , history.

Then when confronted with the work of a historian or some actual documentation, the 'Israelonly' gang resorts to name calling/smear, constantly displaying the weakness, in their own 'arguements'. If one can call irrational claptrap, an arguement?

Actually, the case of distortions lies firmly on the side of the apologists for terrorism gang - - but don't let facts get in the way, just believe your one 'claptrap'

and yet, have you presented anything historically accurate, or actually even remotely accurate, to add to and embellish the forums discussion?

I mean that piece, you posted, wrt iran was utter garbage. You clearly didn't let any facts get in the way, I mean it was quite laughable.

One would hope you would be a little more cognizant of a piece of propoganda, meant to appeal to emotion and cause fear and irrationality, but, still, it appears you are not. or that you would have actually read it?

Apparently you learned nothing from the Iraq debacle, despite, the obvious facts?

cognizant:

* aware(p): (sometimes followed by `of') having or showing knowledge or understanding or realization or perception;

[scribblet]

and yet, have you presented anything historically accurate, or actually even remotely accurate, to add to and embellish the forums discussion?

I mean that piece, you posted, wrt iran was utter garbage. You clearly didn't let any facts get in the way, I mean it was quite laughable.

One would hope you would be a little more cognizant of a piece of propoganda, meant to appeal to emotion and cause fear and irrationality, but, still, it appears you are not. or that you would have actually read it?

Apparently you learned nothing from the Iraq debacle, despite, the obvious facts?

Exactly the same can be said about anything you post, pot - black get over yourself.

You also might want to read the rules which you obviously are not aware of.

BE POLITE AND RESPECT OTHERS

Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way. Please respect others using this board and treat them with respect and dignity.

NO TROLLING/FLAMING

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.

Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. In newsgroup circles, such a person is known as a "troll". We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action.

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS

Please respect others using this board by refraining from personal attacks. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with a thought or idea and attacking an individual. We encourage lively debate and intelligent critiques of others viewpoints, not tirades against another poster.

[kuzadd]

and yet, have you presented anything historically accurate, or actually even remotely accurate, to add to and embellish the forums discussion?

I mean that piece, you posted, wrt iran was utter garbage. You clearly didn't let any facts get in the way, I mean it was quite laughable.

One would hope you would be a little more cognizant of a piece of propoganda, meant to appeal to emotion and cause fear and irrationality, but, still, it appears you are not. or that you would have actually read it?

Apparently you learned nothing from the Iraq debacle, despite, the obvious facts?

Exactly the same can be said about anything you post, pot - black get over yourself.

You also might want to read the rules which you obviously are not aware of.

BE POLITE AND RESPECT OTHERS

Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way. Please respect others using this board and treat them with respect and dignity.

NO TROLLING/FLAMING

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.

Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. In newsgroup circles, such a person is known as a "troll". We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action.

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS

Please respect others using this board by refraining from personal attacks. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with a thought or idea and attacking an individual. We encourage lively debate and intelligent critiques of others viewpoints, not tirades against another poster.

I disagree, there is no pot calling kettle black, and you back my claims up with the fact, that you bring nothing factual, nor relevant, to add to the enjoyment of the discussion, by bringing the rules of the forum up, the very forum rules, you fail to go by.

I launched no personal attack, there was no name calling, or smear, I stated matter of factly, the piece was an obvious propoganda piece and it was, it contained absolutley NOTHING but aspersions and conjecture, and you failed to recognize that.

Join me in the other thread, where we can discuss the obvious nonsense in the piece.

Then you could explain how you were promoting ,from the forum rules, "promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. Really? With that piece in particular?

[scribblet]

I disagree, there is no pot calling kettle black, and you back my claims up with the fact, that you bring nothing factual, nor relevant, to add to the enjoyment of the discussion, by bringing the rules of the forum up, the very forum rules, you fail to go by.

I launched no personal attack, there was no name calling, or smear, I stated matter of factly, the piece was an obvious propoganda piece and it was, it contained absolutley NOTHING but aspersions and conjecture, and you failed to recognize that.

Join me in the other thread, where we can discuss the obvious nonsense in the piece.

Then you could explain how you were promoting ,from the forum rules, "promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion.] Really? With that piece in particular?

You have a right to disagree, but you obviously havn't read the rules about respecting other peoples opinions, just because you don't agree with a piece doesn't make it wrong, just because you say there's nothing factual or relevant doesn't make it so. I would also say that you bring nothing to the enjoyment of a discussion and are continully castigating people for their comments. Your opinion is not necessarily right or factual and I think in the interests of bringing the forum back to its former higher level, it would be best if I put you on ignore, and have done so. You bring nothing to the discussion other than besmirching other people's opinions, you need to look in a mirror.

have a great day

[Rue]

I have waited long enough for a response from the admin; none has been forthcoming. Apparently, if I refer to Rue as an asshole, an idiot, a retard, a jackass, a bitch, liar or moron, I can be censured. But if I allege criminal intent or action on Rue's part, no harm can come. From now on, Rue, since you insist on referring to me as an anti-semite, I will refer to you as a thieving, murderous, baby-killer. Let the debate continue...

Let's see. Where were we? Oh yes. The thieving, murderous, baby-killer was referring to the League of Nations and the 1919 Conference of Versailles which spawned the Second World War and the massacre of 6 million Jews. I believe that the thieving, murderous, baby-killer was using the outcomes of the Versailles conference to justify the theft of Palestinian lands, the ethnic cleansing of the people who lived on those lands, their continued subjugation and impoverishment (including a severely reduced life span), and their banishment to the margins of human existence where they have no human rights. Is that right, thieving murderous baby-killer?

Would you like to go back to debating historical fact, thieving murderous baby-killer, or would you prefer to dwell on hate? For surely it is you and you alone, who has steered a course into the realm of hate.

Ahahah. Sorry I have been having a good laugh and enjoying your attempts to suggest the Walk for Israel campaign was timed to coincide with the latest missile firings from Hamas on Israel.

Your playing the victim card is hilarious. Go ahead. Call me what you want. ahah. Oh you made my day. Baby-killer? How did you know?

[Rue]

"The thieving, murderous, baby-killer was referring to the League of Nations and the 1919 Conference of Versailles which spawned the Second World War and the massacre of 6 million Jews."

Hi I am going to stop baby killings long enough to respond to the above. At no time did I ever state or suggest that the League of Nations and the 1919 Conference of Versailles spawned the Second Word War and massacres of 6 million Jews. My comments to date never suggested such a thing.

"I believe that the thieving, murderous, baby-killer was using the outcomes of the Versailles conference to justify the theft of Palestinian lands, the ethnic cleansing of the people who lived on those lands, their continued subjugation and impoverishment (including a severely reduced life span), and their banishment to the margins of human existence where they have no human rights. Is that right, thieving murderous baby-killer?"

I think the above comment is full of emotion and rhetoric and again you do precisely what you accuse me and others of and that is is precisely why I challenge Higgly. I find your comments have nothing to do with history and everything to do with what to me appears as your anger and rage at what you see has been the activities of Jews in the Middle East as evidenced by the above remarks and many earlier remarks.

"Would you like to go back to debating historical fact, thieving murderous baby-killer,..."

Higgly do you really think the above rhethoric is debating historical fact?

".. or would you prefer to dwell on hate? "

Higgly I am disgusted by some of your remarks and find some of them racist but do I hate you? No hate would require my caring about you. I don't.

"For surely it is you and you alone, who has steered a course into the realm of hate.

"

Your playing the victim card is hilarious if not a bit melodramatic.

I will for the sake of other posters try ignore you and get back to the debate with others.

[jbg]

Higgly, BC_Chick, why not a response to this post (link)?

[kuzadd]

I disagree, there is no pot calling kettle black, and you back my claims up with the fact, that you bring nothing factual, nor relevant, to add to the enjoyment of the discussion, by bringing the rules of the forum up, the very forum rules, you fail to go by.

I launched no personal attack, there was no name calling, or smear, I stated matter of factly, the piece was an obvious propoganda piece and it was, it contained absolutley NOTHING but aspersions and conjecture, and you failed to recognize that.

Join me in the other thread, where we can discuss the obvious nonsense in the piece.

Then you could explain how you were promoting ,from the forum rules, "promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion.] Really? With that piece in particular?

You have a right to disagree, but you obviously havn't read the rules about respecting other peoples opinions, just because you don't agree with a piece doesn't make it wrong, just because you say there's nothing factual or relevant doesn't make it so. I would also say that you bring nothing to the enjoyment of a discussion and are continully castigating people for their comments. Your opinion is not necessarily right or factual and I think in the interests of bringing the forum back to its former higher level, it would be best if I put you on ignore, and have done so. You bring nothing to the discussion other than besmirching other people's opinions, you need to look in a mirror.

have a great day

Promise?

But, I WON'T put you on my ignore list, because, I can take a diversity of opinion, can handle reading it and do not require a closed sphere of influence. In other words, I don't need to keep my head buried in the sand.

Apparently you do?

[betsy]

Higgly, BC_Chick, why not a response to this post (link)?

I would like to read a response to Jbg's post.

If this was presented as an argument, then obviously it should receive a rebutt. Otherwise silence and ignoring Jbg's post only means no one can really come up with something good to rebutt it.

They're stumped?

[Rue]

"Have you read this:

The Jews of Iraq by Naeim Giladi

...Jews killed Jews.....

It is quite clear that Zionism dearly needs to encourage anti-semitic actions in order to justify its own existance. "

Its all so clear to you? You have it all figured out? It is interesting of course that the thousands of articles, legal documents and books on the history of expulsion of Jews from Iraq you feel one article by someone who is an open anti-Zionist whose work has never been published by any reputable publisher requiring the writer to pay $60,000 to Dadilion Press to print his book is all you need to be an expert and promulgate this latest slur that Zionist Jews kill other Jews because they are Zionist? Do you realize this is no different then the revisionists who have argued Jewish Zionists assisted sending Jews to the gas chambers and encouraged the holocaust so they could create Israel?

Does it also not for one second dawn on you how insulting it is to the Jews who escaped Iraq with nothing that you would suggest their fellow Jews made them leave? There are thousands of historic documents that document the forced expulsion of Jews from the Middle East and you would have us believe you took the time to read them before you came to the conclusion to be an expert on what happened?

Do you even know who the foreign Minister of Iraq and the Prime Minister was in the 1940's and what their role was in expelling Jews?Do you realize the above person also believes in many conspiracies and why?

Do you think because he is a Jew that his anti-semitism is acceptable and it is anti-semitic because it does not just criticize Israel it criticizes any Jew that support's Israel's existence. Did you also know this person you quote is someone who is discriminatory and intolerant towards Ashkanazi Jews and sees them as having persecutied Sephardic Jews? Do you have a clue what the Black Panther Party of Israel was and why this man helped start it and then left when he couldn't control it?

May I suggest you try make an effort to find out what went on at least try out two neutral history books where the historians do not express their own political opinions of anti-Zionism but simply stick to what happened and do not confuse the time lines and mix up the events and dates as this man did;

The Last Jews In Baghdad by Nissim Rejway

Iraqi Jews A Mass Exodus, Abbas Shublak.

Neither of the above has a political agenda.

Would you please stop and think how absurd it is for you to post this man as a credible historic source but completely ignore all the other historic sources? Do you really think you can simplify and revise the history of the expulsion of the Jews from the Middle East with one author with an anti-Zionist agenda?

Would you think its possible instead of coming on this post and saying-oph he's good, I like him cuz he tells me what I want to hear Israel bad bad bad...you think it is possible you try speak to a Jew from the Middle East and find out what happened to them? May I suggest you go to any synagogue and ask the Rabbia how you can write to Iraqi Jews in Israel so you can find out from them what happened before you come on this post and think you have figured it all out?

Here try this Iraqi Jew out;

"The vanishing Jews of the Arab world

Baghdad native tells the story of being a Middle East refugee

Semha Alwaya

Sunday, March 6, 2005

In discussions about refugees in the Middle East, a major piece of the narrative is routinely omitted, and my life is part of the tapestry of what's missing. I am a Jew, and I, too, am a refugee. Some of my childhood was spent in a refugee camp in Israel (yes, Israel). And I am far from being alone.

This experience is shared by hundreds of thousands of other indigenous Jewish Middle Easterners who share a similar background to my own. However, unlike the Palestinian Arabs, our narrative is largely ignored by the world because our story -- that of some 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries dispossessed by Arab governments -- is an inconvenience for those who seek to blame Israel for all the problems in the Middle East.

Our lives in the Israel of the 1950s were difficult. We had no money, no property; there were food shortages, few employment prospects. Israel was a new and poor country with very limited resources. It absorbed not only hundreds of thousands of us, but also an equal number of survivors of Hitler's genocide. We lived in dusty tents in "transit camps," their official name because these were to be temporary, not permanent.

Housing was eventually built for us, we became Israeli citizens, and we ceased being refugees. The refugee camps in Israel that I knew as a child were phased out, and no trace of them remains. Israel did this without receiving a single cent from the international community, relying instead on the resourcefulness of its citizens and donations from Diaspora Jewish communities. Today, many of Israel's top leaders are from families that were forced to flee Arab countries, and we make up more than half of Israel's Jewish population.

I was born in Baghdad, and like most other Iraqis, my mother tongue is Arabic. My family's cuisine, our mannerisms, our outlook, are all strongly influenced by our synthesized Judeo-Arabic culture.

There once was a vibrant presence of nearly 1 million Jews residing in 10 Arab countries. Our Middle Eastern Jewish culture existed long before the Arab world dominated and rewrote the history of the Middle East. Today, however, fewer than 12,000 Jews remain in these lands -- almost none in Iraq.

What happened to us, the indigenous Jews of the Arab world? Why were 150, 000 Iraqi Jews -- my family included -- forced out of Iraq? Why were an additional 800,000 Jews from nine other Arab countries also compelled to leave after 1948?

When the world of the 1930s and '40s was divided between the democratic Allies and the Fascist Axis, Arab nationalists in Iraq and Palestine chose to form an alliance with Nazi Germany. The father of Palestinian nationalism and the mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, began his close collaboration with Nazi Germany in the mid-1930s.

The British put out an arrest warrant for the pro-Nazi Palestinian leader, but he escaped when war broke out in Europe in the spring of 1939. Later that year, he arrived in Baghdad and linked up with pro-Nazi Iraqi nationalist Rashid Ali al-Gaylani. In 1941 al-Husseini and al-Gaylani engineered a pro- German coup against the pro-British Iraqi government, which brought a reign of terror to Iraq's Jews. This culminated in what we remember as the Farhud, an Arabic word akin to "pogrom."

In a two-day period Arab mobs went on a rampage in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, murdering, raping and pillaging these cities' Jewish communities. Nearly 200 Jews were killed, more than 2,000 injured; some 900 Jewish homes were destroyed and looted, as were hundreds of Jewish-owned shops. My father was a survivor of the carnage. He hid in a hole dug in the ground to save his life. He saw Iraqi soldiers pull small children away from their parents and rip the arms off young girls to steal their bracelets. He saw pregnant women being raped and their stomachs cut open.

Britain eventually regained control, but al-Husseini and other Palestinian nationalists had already fled to Berlin where they became honored guests of the Nazi state. Hitler told a grateful al-Husseini that "Germany's only remaining objective in the [Middle East] would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands."

Later, in a speech over Radio Berlin's Arabic Service, al-Husseini voiced support for the Nazis' "Final Solution" and became the first Arab leader to call openly for the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands -- some eight years before there was a single Palestinian refugee.

Even though Hitler lost the war, al-Husseini's call was heeded. In 1948, Iraq rounded up and imprisoned hundreds of Jews. Others were removed from their jobs in the civil service, business licenses of Jews were revoked, and quotas were placed on Jewish high school and college students. Later, discriminatory restrictions were imposed on Jewish travel abroad and the buying or selling of property. Thus, even if Jews wanted to escape Iraq, they could not do so legally, and they could not liquidate their assets.

In 1950, the Iraqi parliament passed a law called Ordinance for the Cancellation of Iraqi Nationality for Jews, Law No. 1 that stripped Iraqi Jews of their citizenship. In 1951, the Iraqi parliament passed another law, confiscating all Jewish property. Within a year, most of Iraq's ancient Jewish population, my family included, fled to Israel.

Elsewhere in the Arab world, Jews faced similar circumstances. In Libya in 1945, nearly 100 Jews were massacred. In 1948, the Jewish communities of Aden and Algeria were rocked by a series of attacks that left hundreds dead and many more injured. Discriminatory laws against Jews were passed in other Arab countries. Within a decade, the exodus of Jews from Arab countries was almost complete, with most going to Israel.

All of this was conducted under the guise of law by Arab governments. This forced Jews to flee lands where we had lived for thousands of years before the Arab-Islamic conquests.

Since 1949, the United Nations has passed more than 100 resolutions on Palestinian refugees. Yet, for Jewish refugees from Arab countries not a single U.N. resolution has been introduced recognizing our mistreatment or calling for justice for the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees forced out of our homes. This imbalance of the world's concern is itself an injustice.

Arab governments instituted policies that led to nearly 900,000 Middle Eastern Jews becoming stateless refugees. Those same governments forced about 750,000 Palestinian refugees and their descendants to remain in impoverished refugee camps, refusing them citizenship and denying them hope.

Peace between Israel and the Arab world requires a solution that recognizes that there were two refugee populations. Acknowledging and redressing the legitimate rights of Jewish refugees from Arab countries will promote the cause of justice, peace and a true reconciliation. "

The aboive is an article by Semha Alwaya is an attorney in the Bay Area and a founding member of Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa (www.jimena-justice.org). E-mail us at [email protected].

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...INGM2BJH7U1.DTL

This article appeared on page C - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Here is an article from another Iraqi Jew. Gosh is he a liar?

Semha Alwaya

Sunday, March 6, 2005

In discussions about refugees in the Middle East, a major piece of the narrative is routinely omitted, and my life is part of the tapestry of what's missing. I am a Jew, and I, too, am a refugee. Some of my childhood was spent in a refugee camp in Israel (yes, Israel). And I am far from being alone.

This experience is shared by hundreds of thousands of other indigenous Jewish Middle Easterners who share a similar background to my own. However, unlike the Palestinian Arabs, our narrative is largely ignored by the world because our story -- that of some 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries dispossessed by Arab governments -- is an inconvenience for those who seek to blame Israel for all the problems in the Middle East.

Our lives in the Israel of the 1950s were difficult. We had no money, no property; there were food shortages, few employment prospects. Israel was a new and poor country with very limited resources. It absorbed not only hundreds of thousands of us, but also an equal number of survivors of Hitler's genocide. We lived in dusty tents in "transit camps," their official name because these were to be temporary, not permanent.

Housing was eventually built for us, we became Israeli citizens, and we ceased being refugees. The refugee camps in Israel that I knew as a child were phased out, and no trace of them remains. Israel did this without receiving a single cent from the international community, relying instead on the resourcefulness of its citizens and donations from Diaspora Jewish communities. Today, many of Israel's top leaders are from families that were forced to flee Arab countries, and we make up more than half of Israel's Jewish population.

I was born in Baghdad, and like most other Iraqis, my mother tongue is Arabic. My family's cuisine, our mannerisms, our outlook, are all strongly influenced by our synthesized Judeo-Arabic culture.

There once was a vibrant presence of nearly 1 million Jews residing in 10 Arab countries. Our Middle Eastern Jewish culture existed long before the Arab world dominated and rewrote the history of the Middle East. Today, however, fewer than 12,000 Jews remain in these lands -- almost none in Iraq.

What happened to us, the indigenous Jews of the Arab world? Why were 150, 000 Iraqi Jews -- my family included -- forced out of Iraq? Why were an additional 800,000 Jews from nine other Arab countries also compelled to leave after 1948?

When the world of the 1930s and '40s was divided between the democratic Allies and the Fascist Axis, Arab nationalists in Iraq and Palestine chose to form an alliance with Nazi Germany. The father of Palestinian nationalism and the mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, began his close collaboration with Nazi Germany in the mid-1930s.

The British put out an arrest warrant for the pro-Nazi Palestinian leader, but he escaped when war broke out in Europe in the spring of 1939. Later that year, he arrived in Baghdad and linked up with pro-Nazi Iraqi nationalist Rashid Ali al-Gaylani. In 1941 al-Husseini and al-Gaylani engineered a pro- German coup against the pro-British Iraqi government, which brought a reign of terror to Iraq's Jews. This culminated in what we remember as the Farhud, an Arabic word akin to "pogrom."

In a two-day period Arab mobs went on a rampage in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq, murdering, raping and pillaging these cities' Jewish communities. Nearly 200 Jews were killed, more than 2,000 injured; some 900 Jewish homes were destroyed and looted, as were hundreds of Jewish-owned shops. My father was a survivor of the carnage. He hid in a hole dug in the ground to save his life. He saw Iraqi soldiers pull small children away from their parents and rip the arms off young girls to steal their bracelets. He saw pregnant women being raped and their stomachs cut open.

Britain eventually regained control, but al-Husseini and other Palestinian nationalists had already fled to Berlin where they became honored guests of the Nazi state. Hitler told a grateful al-Husseini that "Germany's only remaining objective in the [Middle East] would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands."

Later, in a speech over Radio Berlin's Arabic Service, al-Husseini voiced support for the Nazis' "Final Solution" and became the first Arab leader to call openly for the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands -- some eight years before there was a single Palestinian refugee.

Even though Hitler lost the war, al-Husseini's call was heeded. In 1948, Iraq rounded up and imprisoned hundreds of Jews. Others were removed from their jobs in the civil service, business licenses of Jews were revoked, and quotas were placed on Jewish high school and college students. Later, discriminatory restrictions were imposed on Jewish travel abroad and the buying or selling of property. Thus, even if Jews wanted to escape Iraq, they could not do so legally, and they could not liquidate their assets.

In 1950, the Iraqi parliament passed a law called Ordinance for the Cancellation of Iraqi Nationality for Jews, Law No. 1 that stripped Iraqi Jews of their citizenship. In 1951, the Iraqi parliament passed another law, confiscating all Jewish property. Within a year, most of Iraq's ancient Jewish population, my family included, fled to Israel.

Elsewhere in the Arab world, Jews faced similar circumstances. In Libya in 1945, nearly 100 Jews were massacred. In 1948, the Jewish communities of Aden and Algeria were rocked by a series of attacks that left hundreds dead and many more injured. Discriminatory laws against Jews were passed in other Arab countries. Within a decade, the exodus of Jews from Arab countries was almost complete, with most going to Israel.

All of this was conducted under the guise of law by Arab governments. This forced Jews to flee lands where we had lived for thousands of years before the Arab-Islamic conquests.

Since 1949, the United Nations has passed more than 100 resolutions on Palestinian refugees. Yet, for Jewish refugees from Arab countries not a single U.N. resolution has been introduced recognizing our mistreatment or calling for justice for the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees forced out of our homes. This imbalance of the world's concern is itself an injustice.

Arab governments instituted policies that led to nearly 900,000 Middle Eastern Jews becoming stateless refugees. Those same governments forced about 750,000 Palestinian refugees and their descendants to remain in impoverished refugee camps, refusing them citizenship and denying them hope.

Peace between Israel and the Arab world requires a solution that recognizes that there were two refugee populations. Acknowledging and redressing the legitimate rights of Jewish refugees from Arab countries will promote the cause of justice, peace and a true reconciliation.

Semha Alwaya is an attorney in San Fransisco and a founding member of Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa (www.jimena-justice.org). Please E-mail him at [email protected] and try challenge yourself to do something other then find the one narrow article that fits your agenda.

[BC_chick]

If someone is a tenant of an absentee landlord, as appeared to have been the way that the current State of Israel was (thinly) populated by resident Arabs, they were not in adverse possession.

So using that same logic, all the countries that came out of the Ottoman empire are illegitimate, including Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and (gasp) Israel.

[kuzadd]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...icle2584164.ece

Secret memo shows Israel knew Six Day War was illegal

By Donald Macintyre

Published: 26 May 2007

A senior legal official who secretly warned the government of Israel after the Six Day War of 1967 that it would be illegal to build Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories has said, for the first time, that he still believes that he was right.

The declaration by Theodor Meron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's legal adviser at the time and today one of the world's leading international jurists, is a serious blow to Israel's persistent argument that the settlements do not violate international law, particularly as Israel prepares to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the war in June 1967.

The legal opinion, a copy of which has been obtained by The Independent, was marked "Top Secret" and "Extremely Urgent" and reached the unequivocal conclusion, in the words of its author's summary, "that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Judge Meron, president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia until 2005, said that, after 40 years of Jewish settlement growth in the West Bank - one of the main problems to be solved in any peace deal: " I believe that I would have given the same opinion today."

Judge Meron, a holocaust survivor, also sheds new light on the aftermath of the 1967 war by disclosing that the Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, was " sympathetic" to his view that civilian settlement would directly conflict with the Hague and Geneva conventions governing the conduct of occupying powers.

Despite the legal opinion, which was forwarded to Levi Eshkol, the Prime Minister, but not made public at the time, the Labour cabinet progressively sanctioned settlements. This paved the way to growth which has resulted in at least 240,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank today.

Judge Meron, 76, is now an appeal judge at the Tribunal. Speaking about his 1967 opinion for the first time, he also tells tomorrow's Independent Magazine: "It's obvious to me that the fact that settlements were established and the pace of the establishment of the settlements made peacemaking much more difficult."

"The settlements made peacekeeping much more difficult", "one of the main problems" still today.

Though Israel denies it is a occupation, it is, that what it is, it is an occupation, spinning it away, with fancy language, cannot change the fact Israel , knowingly, occupies Palestinian Land.

[jbg]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...icle2584164.ece

Despite the legal opinion, which was forwarded to Levi Eshkol, the Prime Minister, but not made public at the time, the Labour cabinet progressively sanctioned settlements. This paved the way to growth which has resulted in at least 240,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank today.

*****

"The settlements made peacekeeping much more difficult", "one of the main problems" still today.

Though Israel denies it is a occupation, it is, that what it is, it is an occupation, spinning it away, with fancy language, cannot change the fact Israel , knowingly, occupies Palestinian Land.

OK. Is China engaged in "illegal" activites by packing Tibet with people of Chinese extraction?

I cannot understand the view of so many that heads the Jewish inhabitants of the land of Israel lose, tails the fighters, jihadis and warriors win. What do fighters, jihadis and warriors contribute to the world's welfare? Why is Israel being held to a standard that other nations cannot, and will not ever, hold themselves to?

The "Geneva Conventions" were apparently an attempt by politicians to prevent the series of wars that preceded it, WW I and WW II. While well-intentioned, no nation will treat such international law as a suicide pact.

[kuzadd]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...icle2584164.ece

Despite the legal opinion, which was forwarded to Levi Eshkol, the Prime Minister, but not made public at the time, the Labour cabinet progressively sanctioned settlements. This paved the way to growth which has resulted in at least 240,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank today.

*****

"The settlements made peacekeeping much more difficult", "one of the main problems" still today.

Though Israel denies it is a occupation, it is, that what it is, it is an occupation, spinning it away, with fancy language, cannot change the fact Israel , knowingly, occupies Palestinian Land.

OK. Is China engaged in "illegal" activites by packing Tibet with people of Chinese extraction?

I cannot understand the view of so many that heads the Jewish inhabitants of the land of Israel lose, tails the fighters, jihadis and warriors win. What do fighters, jihadis and warriors contribute to the world's welfare? Why is Israel being held to a standard that other nations cannot, and will not ever, hold themselves to?

The "Geneva Conventions" were apparently an attempt by politicians to prevent the series of wars that preceded it, WW I and WW II. While well-intentioned, no nation will treat such international law as a suicide pact.

"I cannot understand the view of so many that heads the Jewish inhabitants of the land of Israel lose, tails the fighters, jihadis and warriors win. What do fighters, jihadis and warriors contribute to the world's welfare? Why is Israel being held to a standard that other nations cannot, and will not ever, hold themselves to"

perhaps because you only look at situations in such a manner as quoted, that you cannot grasp any other views?

Inc. the one in the article posted from Theodor Meron, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's legal adviser at the time and today one of the world's leading international jurists,

sounds to me like he is informed, knowledgable, etc., he clearly hasn't changed his mind in all this time.

His declaration is "a serious blow to Israel's persistent argument that the settlements do not violate international law, particularly as Israel prepares to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the war in June 1967."

He infact informed the Israeli government from the get go that what was being done was illegal.

BTW: I do not think the Geneva Conventions only goals we as you have stated, I think the intentions were far greater, far wider ranging, then just preventing wars.

[M.Dancer]

If someone is a tenant of an absentee landlord, as appeared to have been the way that the current State of Israel was (thinly) populated by resident Arabs, they were not in adverse possession.

So using that same logic, all the countries that came out of the Ottoman empire are illegitimate, including Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and (gasp) Israel.

1

Israel didn't (gasp) emerge from the Ottoman Empire, but from the Britsh via the (gasp) UN

[scribblet]

I cannot understand the view of so many that heads the Jewish inhabitants of the land of Israel lose, tails the fighters, jihadis and warriors win. What do fighters, jihadis and warriors contribute to the world's welfare? Why is Israel being held to a standard that other nations cannot, and will not ever, hold themselves to?

The "Geneva Conventions" were apparently an attempt by politicians to prevent the series of wars that preceded it, WW I and WW II. While well-intentioned, no nation will treat such international law as a suicide pact.

I think you've hit the nail on the head JBG, obviously Palestinian or terrorist supporters want Israel to fail, they want that 'suicide pact'. Many agitate for a one state solution which we know would be the absolute end of Israel and democracy.

[betsy]

If someone is a tenant of an absentee landlord, as appeared to have been the way that the current State of Israel was (thinly) populated by resident Arabs, they were not in adverse possession.

So using that same logic, all the countries that came out of the Ottoman empire are illegitimate, including Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and (gasp) Israel.

1

Israel didn't (gasp) emerge from the Ottoman Empire, but from the Britsh via the (gasp) UN

Since most anti-war people value the decision of the UN so much, this shouldn't be a problem at all.

Emerging from the UN....the nation of Israel is therefore legitimate, no question about it!

[Rue]

I am again amazed at the attempt to simplifya legal opinion into a simplistic easy to understand right and wrong concept.

What this legal opinion stated if someone bothers to read it in its entirety is as follows. If Israel chose to make the West Bank part of Israel, which it could have legally, then necessarily all WEst Bank Arabs would automatically have to be given Israeli citizenship.

Since the Israeli government was not interested in granting Israeli citizenship to West Bank Muslims, it was told by this legal opinion, you can't have it both ways. If you don't want to annex it, then technically to rule it, it has to be done through the Israel Defence Force and not through a civilian government.

What Israel was being told was that under the 4th Geneva Convention, if you move into an undefined territory and do not wish to annex it, but move into it for security reasons, the convention requires it be administered by the military not civilian government.

Israel at the time was worried about on-going terrorist attacks. It didn't want to annex the West Bank but did want to control it for security reasons.

So this legal opinion told the PM you can't have it both ways-no more, no less.

Israel felt at the time that by placing settlers in the West Bank they could do two things-pacify Jewish right wingers who felt the West Bank belonged to Israel and at the same time using those settlers as early warning posts to detect terrorist movement.

Here is the point. Going back to the League of Nations mandate, Palestine originally was not defined to specifically mean anything other then the area now known as Israel, the Golan Heights, Southern Lebanon, the West Bank and Jordan.

It was France who took it upon themselves to create colonies in Syria and Lebanon taking a portion of Palestine (Golan Heights) for Syria and a small portion for Lebanon. It was Britain who took it upon themselves to create two puppet monarchies, one in TransJordan and one in Iraq and the one in TransJordan took 70% of Palestine.

It was then Britain who took it upon themselves to imose quotas on Jews in direct violation of the League Mandate as was their imposing a law in TransJordan forbidding the settlement of Jews in that country.

It was in fact Britain's decision to try prevent the League mandate to set up a Jewish state by taking away 70% of Palestine coupled with France's land grabs that then left Jews in limbo with Muslims and Christians in what was not Syria, Lebanon, TransJordan.

In fact because of that state of limbo the Arab League then moved to refuse to acknowledge any Jewish right to a state. The Arab League was not specifying creating a second Arab Palestinian state. Its comments were simply directed at not allowing a Jewish state. In fact it was the intention of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon to see who could get what in the remaining portions. All this is revealed public fact in the statements, documents and policies of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, France and Britain.

When Israel did come about in 1949 it was by default or by de facto possession from war. Because the Arab League chose to initiate a war to try seize the remainder of Palestine unilaterally, and the Jews who were there were able to defeat them, Israel ended up with the border it did. In fact the only reason it did not end up with a country in both the West Bank and Israel was because Jordan militarily occupied it. Jordan did not annex the West Bank. It never set up a government. It left the West Bank occupied but with no formal government.

It wasn't until 1967, Israel militarily went into the West Bank. You can't occupy a piece of land that was never sovereign. That is a legal impossibility. What many call occupation is not that. The word is used because people feel since the Israeli Army is on the West Bank and Israeli settlers are there they are occupying it. From a layman's use of the word yes, from a legal perspective no.

What Israel did by placing settlers in the West Bank can be argued to contravene the 4th Geneva Convention not because the settlers are there but because they have been administered civilly and not by the military. That is the legal issue.

From a purely practical point of view, or a political non legal perspective, placing Israeli settlers in the West Bank served to fuel terrorism and violent reaction, not curtail it.

Here is the problem the ISrael bad people simplify and ignore. Israel was wrong to move into the West Bank from a practical perspective. From a legal perspective it is a minor issue. From a social and political issue it is a huge thing. Politically though there is another part to the story. The West Bank has been and continues to be a launching site for terrrorist attacks.

Israel had the right and still has the right under international law to use its military to prevent terrorist attacks whether it be from the Gaza or West Bank.

What Israel has realized is it can not from a practical point of view annex the West Bank because it can not absord the West Bank Palestinians. It also knows leaving its civilian settlements ont he West Bank are not providing a strategic defense against terrorists.

So the fact is if any one bothers to read, Israel has stated it would as part of a comprehensive peace plan remove the settlers, and in fact the Arab League has already acknowledged this and responded favourably by suggesting in return for the withdrawal of settlers it would agree on demilitarizing the West Bank.

The problem is demilitarizing terrorists has not proven possible in Lebanon or the Gaza and what is holding up a peace settlement now is not Israel but the inability of Jordan and Lebanon, not just Israel to control terrorists. In that respect all three countries have the identical concerns.

The Oslo accord which was an attempt to delegate administration of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority fell apart not because of Israel, but because when Israel initiated negotiations with the PA to withdraw to secure borders. Arafat changed his tune and recommenced speeches calling on the PLO to attack and destroy Israel. The speeches are public records as are the continuous Oslo violations including hiring terrorists into the Palestinian police forces and terrorist attacks not just by Hamas but by many PLO factions not to mention the thousands of speeches calling for the end to Israel.

There are always two sides to this story and of course the usual people like to isolate it and look at only one side.

The bottom line is Israel realizes the settlements are a disaster. They are putting up a huge security wall and placing sattelite tracking posts on the West Bank both with the approval of Jordan and the Arab League unofficially.

The hardship the walls will cause to Palestinian families who will be forced to detour is a fact and its not a good thing. However one would hope if the wall enables a forced distancing between the West Bank and Israel, there will be a possibility for both sides to heal. Already the wall has proven to stop terrorist attacks.

It is hopeful say after 10 years of seperation, both sides could then feel more confident to trust one another and take down the wall or modify it.

The exercise of trying to say Israel evil, bad it broke laws is as meaninful as saying the same about Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and the Arab League and the international laws the PA has continually violated not to mention the lawlessness of Hamas.

For those who are trying to depict Israel as evil, how about you also acknowledge the terrorist factor and understand that as long as it exists both peoples Palestinian and Israeli are witnessing legal violations on both sides all flowing from the inability to control terrorism.

The issue here is disarming the terrorists so that it is then possible to create a structure of peace plans.

In that respect it would be no different then what has happened in Northern Ireland.

[Rue]

If someone is a tenant of an absentee landlord, as appeared to have been the way that the current State of Israel was (thinly) populated by resident Arabs, they were not in adverse possession.

So using that same logic, all the countries that came out of the Ottoman empire are illegitimate, including Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and (gasp) Israel.

You may wish to go back and read the League of Nations mandate. May I suggest you go back to Woodrow Wilson's speeches in 1919 and work from there. There is actually a great deal of legal literature that suggests France and Britain acted unilaterally and illegally when they created Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.

The issue as to the creation of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq is distinct from Israel. Those countries borders came about because of the unilateral declarations of Britain and France and in fact there decision to side step the League and simply do what they wanted. The legal proces for how they created these nations is completely distinct from how Israel's 1949 to 1967 country and borders came about.

Israel was not created by a colonial state imposing a colonial regime. It was in fact created when Jews

living in Palestine not part of another state were faced with the Arab League attacking them.

They simply fought to survive and the borders that came about came about de facto from war and defending themselves. They were not imposed by the UN or Britain or France, but in fact the de facto result of the Arab League being unable to kill Jews and a stalemate arising.

The actual border between 1949 and 1967 was never recognized by the Arab League and it was only recently Jordan and Egypt recognized it. No other Arab country has although unofficially there is a movement within the Arab League concerned with terrorist fundamentalism from Iran to see the current conflict between the Arab world and the Arab fundamentalist terrorist world serious enough to want to

shift attention away from the Palestinian conflict by settling it, so it can deal with the fundamentalist terrorist conflict.

Certainly as much as Lebanon and Jordan can not admit it, they share the exact same security concerns as Israel does. Also unofficially as much as Egypt and Saudi Arabia would not admit it officially they share Israel's concerns as to fundamentalist terrorism.

Morrocco and Tunisia have unofficially good relations with Israel.

Morrocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Lebanon and Egypt have all had first hand civil wars within their borders with

Palestinians.

So the point is yes, legally if you bother to read, this is not a simple issue and no Israel was not started illegally but the current conflict is a result of what France and Britain did, what the League of Nations and UN failed to do, and what the US was able to do in the 1940's and 50's to broker and prevent the mass murder of Jews once deported from Muslim countries in retaliation for the creation of Israel.

This simplistic notion that Israel is illegal is bull shit. Repeating it over and over won't make it true.

[Rue]

The "Geneva Conventions" were apparently an attempt by politicians to prevent the series of wars that preceded it, WW I and WW II. While well-intentioned, no nation will treat such international law as a suicide pact.

It is interesting JBG to note the inconsistent application of the Geneva Convention by the Israel is poo poo posters. It seems only to be used to point out Israel is bad bad bad, but have you ever seen the same posters use it to suggest the same about Arab League nation actions or the actions of terrorist groups? Yah I will hold my breath.

Here is the point. The 4th Geneva Convention which the Israel poo poo people likes to quote does not say the settlement of Israelis on the West Bank are necessarily illegal. What it does say is that its being administered by a civilian government makes it illegal Israel could easily conform to the convention and make its settlements legal by simply administering them by the IDF. The point is how would that help. These Israel poo poo people have no clue that the real issue is not a legal one which is a technicality it is the social and political issues associated with Palestinians in the West Bank living in limbo.

More to the point the same Geneva Convention the Israel bad people like to quote also allows Israel to use reasonable force to defend itself from terrorist actions including creating safe defensible borders.

The convention has never stated Israel must sit around and be attacked and it is not allowed to defend itself as much as some of the posters would like to twist it around to suggest it says that.

Of course we can also coveniently ignore what Morrocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan did with international and domestic law when it had to deal with Palestinians within their borders. We can also conveniently ignore the continuous violations by Hamas and the PLO that started long before and continued long after the settlements.

Unlike the Israel poo poo people, while I personally think the settlements are an aggravating factor and an obstacle to peace, I don't pretend this is the only reason terrorists break the law or that Israel is the only nation in the world to defend itself against terrorists in the manner it has.

As for China, and the hundreds of other countries that have violated international law, oh stop it. Israel bad bad bad. No one else bad. Just Israel. Israel poo poo. Israeli people poo poo. Zionists poo poo. You poo poo. There I have conytributed to the dialogue showing I can understand the other side's arguements and engage in them with respect.

[betsy]

Perhaps the stark reality that there are several terrorist groups who include Canada as well as the US on their "hit list". When an enemy declared it is about to wreak vengence on you, it is wise to pay attention. I have no wish to wake up dead thanks to some terrorist who set off a bomb where I happened to be.

Nor do I wish anything of the sort. I am just not convinced that there is a threat of a Muslim rule destroying western civilisation and way of life unless impotent tyrants in the Middle-East are overthrown and their countries are invaded.

I'm with WestViking here. A threat is a threat is a threat! What more do you want, several 9/11 and subway bombings before we acknowledge there is a threat?

Heck, if I say I'd kill you, you'd have the cops on me for threatening you! Why would this be any different other than it's on a very much larger scale?

Well, I'd rather the fighting be done there in those god-forsaken countries than here! That innocent civilians are hurt and killed is just too bad but the stark reality. Those civilians should blame the extremists in their midst....and should boot them out and destroy them!

I'd rather the innocent civilians here remain safe! That's just human nature. It's either them or us!