Israeli Government Ads Warn Against Marrying Non-Jews

[irydion]

Sound like excellent reasons to me.

Giving all the best to one side? sure.

The United Nations is not known for being pro-Israel either.

Nowdays. Because nowdays, arab, muslim, african states are independant. It wasn't the case six decades ago. Remember that in that time, both USSR and USA hoped to win over Jews, and both supported Israel.
How ignorant can you be not to see that?

You mean before the UN partition plan that would have given Palestinians a state? The land was British back then, and in any event the Galil was always historically Jewish. The Jerusalem Talmud was written there, it was a world center of Jewish mysticism in the Middle Ages...

Yeah, I'd say you are the ignorant one.

No, you are ignorant and silly. The land wasn't british. The administration was. The land itself was owned by Arabs, Turks, and - to an increasing degree - zionist Jews. Your inability to distinguish that does not say much good about you.

Historically Jewish? Because over 2000 years ago some Jews were writing their scrolls, and because of a couple of spiritual leaders in Safad or wherever? Palestinian Arabs should've given this land to the Jews because of that? Do you think other ethnic groups do not have their own history, their own spiritual leaders, that all that counts are the Jews?

 

[irydion]

Because the Galil already was Jewish, you're damn right.

No it wasn't.

here you can find the numbers from 1945/6, after a major shift of the population in favour of the jewish immigrants, which almost doubled their number:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_Palestine

Jews were the majority in Jaffa district ONLY. In Hayfa (47%), Jerusalem (40%) they were close to that. In Baysan (30%), Safad (13%) and Tiberias (33%), which were assigned to the nascent jewish state too, Jews were a definite minority

your attempts to claim I support terrorism because I support Palestinians are silly. Oneday jewish people will be ashamed of such shameful and blatant policy.

 

[irydion]

You think I don't have the ability to distinguish between the two concepts, a distinguishing which is irrelevant to specific points we were having in our discussion, which does not say much good about you. My intelligence is widely praised all over this forum, by my friends AND my detractors, so you don't know the first thing about me.

Being a Jew, apparently you can't distance yourself from this subject and be objective. Your ways of leading a discussion (accusing me of being ignorant when I present facts uncomfortable for your point of view, and claiming I support terrorism because I claim Israel is partly responsible for the conflict are pathetic.

 

[Kulindahr]

occupation, starting a couple wars, destruction of housing... very peaceful.

Plainly you don't even read what you're responding to.

The historical information has been given how Jews began settling in the area before it was even called "Palestine", even before WW I -- and that Arabs began violence against them just because they were Jews, when all the Jews were doing was just living in peace and bothering no one.

But you've got you blinders on, and have such a fixation with condemning Israel, that you can't turn away from your selected view to regard such pesky things as history.

Between that and your demonstrated penchant for misreading or twisting -- like pretending I was "complaining" that Jews weren't allowed to participate in the Crusades! -- there's not much point pursuing this, because you're not trying to communicate, only to propagandize.

 

[Kulindahr]

A report whose name I can't recall right now, commissioned by the British prior to the 1948 settlement stated that there were few if any arab muslims (or anyone else for that matter) living in Israel and that there was no land that could be used for farming.

I apparently missed this tidbit the first time by.

I've seen that report referenced, and it's a classical bit of colonialistic, chauvinistic blindness: its standards for "farming" and population density were what prevailed back in England....
By those measures, yes -- there was no land useful for farming, and hardly anyone lived there.

That last argument can be particularly sinister -- it has been used, in not-quite-so-blatant form, by urban politicians to justify dictating terms of land use to the folks in rural areas, effectively turning them into tenants rather than owners (besides driving up housing and land prices).

 

[Kulindahr]

I haven't read up on the history in a long time. However, if memory serves me right, the Ottomans were not exactly benevolent rulers. To the extent what is now Israel and the occupied territories became a wasteland, I believe a lot of that had to do with Ottoman neglect or misrule. Unfortunately for Palestinian Arabs, as with much of the Middle East, you had an ignorant and illiterate population that followed tribal rule. Local governance, to the extent it existed, was by a few wealthy Arab families. When war broke out in 1948, and many of these wealthy Arabs fled, their people followed. The Jewish forces committed some atrocities, or took other steps to cause the Arabs to flee, but in some parts they did not. Hence, today, Israel has a large Arab population that are Israeli citizens.

Don't forget that the Arab forces also took steps to cause Arabs to flee.

 

[Kulindahr]

funny that you mention that. I wanted to mention that as well, because, apart from the coastal belt, it is also the place where jewish settlements were the strongest. By accident, you've actually supported my claim that zionists were buying the best lands in Palestine, not settling in the desert, as according to Israeli propaganda.

If they were buying, they were not "occupying".
And the Arab armies came to drive out legitimate landowners.




And you think that was just fine: foreigners coming in to drive out legitimate landowners.

 

[irydion]

I however speak from experience and knowledge.

no, you speak from being jewish and full of silly, ignorant and illogical israeli propaganda.

Don't forget that the Arab forces also took steps to cause Arabs to flee.

I doubt they have, because they had hardly any interest in that. But even if they did, it's not the flight itself that caused the refugee problem: it was the israeli denial to let them back in. Which was caused by israeli decision to take their land and settle it with Jews. And so they did.

If they were buying, they were not "occupying".
And the Arab armies came to drive out legitimate landowners.

You don't really know what the Arabs would do after the war. We know, however, what the Israelis did: expelled and didn't let back in the expulsed / fled Arabs, and took their land. The Arab guilt, even if probable, is a hypothetical one, the Israeli one - very real. Anyway, it's a difference to be chased from a land you live in for a couple of years, and from a land your family lived in for centuries, where your parents and grandparents are buried, where you were born.

The historical information has been given how Jews began settling in the area before it was even called "Palestine", even before WW I

Yes, surely this land was called Mars before ww1
There was no STATE of Palestine. That doesn't mean there was no geographical concept of Palestine. if there was not, the British wouldn't use this name for the mandate...

-- and that Arabs began violence against them just because they were Jews, when all the Jews were doing was just living in peace and bothering no one.

No they did not. It's an idiotic, biased claim. They didn't start violence against them "because they were Jews", but because they were buying lands and evicting the Arabic tenants, and, later on, because Arabs - rightly! - recognised that the Jews want to establish their own state in this, arabic-inhabited, land.

jews have suffered much through the history, especially in the XX century. But that doesn't mean they are any different from other nationalities, that their nationalism is harmful. It is not. And hatred towards Jews doesn't always have to be caused by irrational motives. Just like hatred towards other nations, groups, people, it can be caused by actual harms suffered from them. And such is the case here. I do not excuse racism that appears among Palestinians and other Arabs. I do not excuse persecution of Jews that followed the creation of Israel. I do not excuse the terrorism. But I am apalled at white-washing actual israeli misdeeds.

 

[CTorontoC]

Iridyon, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about on the subject and should not be commenting in this thread.

There are two groups of Palestinians currently: the ones still living in Palestine, under jewish occupation, and the refugees.
When it comes to refugees: they appeared after 1948. Exactly when the mandate ceased to exist. Where would they come from, if not from Palestine? Were citizens of other regions PRETENDING to be from Palestine? They've decided to spend, with their children and grandchildren, decades in the refugee camps, without (apart from Jordan) citizen rights, without much state aid, without proper housing (in the beginning), often without clean water etc? Just to conspire against Israel? Is that a sane thing to think?
And the ones living in Israel: Israel didn't even let in people who fled from it during 1948 war. Is it really likely it allowed Arabs from other regions to move in en masse?
You are very naive.

Correct history for you: Prior to the mandate going into effect scores of Muslim Arab leaders told their civilians to get out of the way of the fighting so that when they returned they could claim Jewish homes, rape their women and kill the rest. The entire population of Israel at that time was very small, Jews, Arabs, Christians or otherwise. So myth A. Palestinian Refugees. TO be a refugee you must be forced from your home when your country is invaded, not choose to leave your home when you are invading another country as all of the Arab states did in 1948 hours after Israel's creation. Having lost to a rag tag bunch of ill equipped militias these people who had wanted to rape and pillage suddenly became refugees.

Flash forward and Israel is the most progressive, economically successful, democratic, liberal, prosperous nation in the entire region. Women can vote, leave the house without their husbands, be seen in public without hijab, men can get good jobs without having tribal ties etc. etc. The Muslims that chose not to leave in 1948 and accepted Israel's proposal of full citizenship were granted that citizenship and today there are over 1 million Muslim citizens of Israel most of whom are far better off than their cousins elsewhere in the mid-east. Many, many Muslims from surrounding countries saw this prosperity and wanted a piece of it. Yassir Arafat the terrorist leader of the 90s and early 2000s was himself a frickin Egyptian!! So yes, lots of people did come from eslewhere and do claim to be descendants of former inhabitants but they definitely are not. The only way to confirm this was the genetic testing that was done and as soon as I can find the documents online I will furnish them for you. And yeah I dont think Israel just let this happen but it's pretty damn tough to stop people from crossing borders even now, forget about back then. Bedouins in the area cross borders all the time without any trouble or notice. And as for choosing to live in "refugee camps", (Must be the most luxurious refugee camps in the world, I bet the people of darfur would not view the permanent structures, roads and other infrastructure as being the same as the refugee camps they live in. Nonetheless those cities were created as a result of the desire for a two state solution and the subsequent mismanagement of those areas by Palestinians. Instead of investing in social and civil infrastructure, they invested international aid and THE MONEY GIVEN TO THEM BY ISRAEL in their terror infrastructure and the plight of their own people worsened. No one is to blame for the state of these cities other than the Palestinians themselves. I might be naive, but you are [Inappropriate text: Removed by Moderator] blinded by your own ignorance. Id rather be naive.


Let's go back a bit in time to pre-1948 again.

http://www.mideastweb.org

Direct Source Link (added by moderator): http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

Arab Riots and Jewish immigration - In the spring of 1920, spring of 1921 and summer of 1929, Arab nationalists opposed to the Balfour declaration, the mandate and the Jewish National Home, instigated riots and pogroms against Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, Jaffa and Haifa. The violence led to the formation of the Haganah Jewish self-defense organization in 1920. The riots of 1920 and 1921 reflected opposition to the Balfour declaration and fears that the Arabs of Palestine would be dispossessed, and were probably attempts to show the British that Palestine as a Jewish National home would be ungovernable. The major instigators were Hajj Amin El Husseini, later Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and eventually a Nazi collaborator, and Arif -El Arif, a prominent Palestinian journalist. The riots of 1929 occurred against the background of Jewish-Arab nationalist antagonism. The Arabs claimed that Jewish immigration and land purchases were displacing and dispossessing the Arabs of Palestine. However, economic, population and other indicators suggest that objectively, the Arabs of Palestine benefited from the Mandate and Zionist investment. Arab standard of living increased faster in Palestine than other areas, and population grew prodigiously throughout the Mandate years. (see Zionism and its Impact). The riots were also fueled by false rumors that the Jews intended to build a synagogue at the wailing wall, or otherwise encroach upon the Muslim rule over the Temple Mount compound, including the Al-Aqsa mosque. The pogroms led to evacuation of most of the Jewish community of Hebron. .

Yup, the Jews started it alright..

In 1936 widespread rioting, later known as the Arab Revolt or Great Uprising, broke out. The revolt was kindled when British forces killed Izz al din El Qassam in a gun battle. Izz al Din El Qassam was a Syrian preacher who had emigrated to Palestine and was agitating against the British and the Jews.

So far we have a Syrian as a major "Palestinian" name

The revolt was coopted by the Husseini family and by Fawzi El Kaukji, a former Turkish officer, and it was possibly financed in part by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Thousands of Arabs and hundreds of Jews were killed in the revolt, which spread rapidly owing to initial unpreparedness of the British authorities. About half the 5,000 residents of the Jewish quarter of the old city of Jerusalem were forced to flee, and the remnant of the Hebron Jewish community was evacuated as well. The Husseini family killed both Jews and members of Palestinian Arab families opposed to their hegemony

Oops, now it's a "Palestinian" Turk and oops there were at least 5000 Jews in Jerusalem's old quarter alone pre-1948 I guess you were wrong again Iridyon. This is becoming a trend.

And? 3% minority can not demand entire land

Apparently you're also very bad with math.

By 1880, about 24,000 Jews were living in Palestine, out of a population of about 400,000. At about that time, the Ottoman government imposed severe restrictions on Jewish immigration and land purchase, and also began actively soliciting inviting Muslims from other parts of the Ottoman empire to settle in Palestine, including Circassians and Bosnians. The restrictions were evaded in various ways by Jews seeking to colonize Palestine, chiefly by bribery.

he Zionists established farm communities in Palestine at Petah Tikva, Zichron Jacob, Rishon Letzion and elsewhere. Later they established the new city of Tel Aviv, north of Jaffa. At the same time, Palestine's Arab population grew rapidly. By 1914, the total population of Palestine stood at about 700,000. About 615,000 were Arabs, and 85,000 to 100,000 were Jews.

So let's see where else you were wrong .. besides Jews NOT being 3% of the overall population they also did NOT take away the good cities from the Arabs they FOUNDED THE GOOD CITIES.

Tell me, if palestinian Arabs are immigrants, where did the palestinian christians come from? They couldn't have come from Egypt, nor from Syria - the dominational structure of christians in the patriarchates of Alexandria (almost all are monophysites), Antioch (monophysites, orthodox and maronites) and Jerusalem (almost all orthodox) are different...

[Inappropriate text: Removed by Moderator] I mean this comment almost doesn't even merit a response it's so stupid. Jesus came from Israel, [Inappropriate text: Removed by Moderator]. His followers rose in Israel and expanded throughout the Roman empire. They never left Israel just as Jews never did. Oh and let's not forget the CRUSADES, yes those might have brought a few Christians to the land ... DUH

Far eastern people? The only far eastern people were a couple Mongol immigrants, Al-Wafidiyya, in XIII century. There were some Quarizmians...
but these were small groups. But even they would have bigger right to this land than zionists, because they actually inhabited this land for centuries.

I'll admit to a mistake here, I meant near eastern not far eastern. Uhm have you ever heard of the first Jihad? When Muslims spread throughout the middle east converting people by the sword, they killed off most of any remaining native population of kanaanites that actually held to their traditional lifestyle (Kanaanites were pagans and Muslims do not tolerate pagans) But most of them were by now Jews of Christians (and obviously not Muslims since the religion hadn't existed prior). So the Muslims now living in the region came from the areas surrounding Mecca and Medina where the religion rose.

When muslims were conquering Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Iran, North Africa etc, Muhammad was already dead.

Nope, the campaign against Arabia was well under way when Muhammed died. Granted, he was not around to see it's completion but he certainly initiated it. I can't copy and paste from wikipedia but just look up muhammed the prophet and you will find this information.

that is funny. Palestinian climate changed, because there were no Jews there. lol.

Actually, yes it did. If you knew anything about human history you'd know that not so long ago the middle east was the cradle of civilization and the world's wheat basket. It was a tropical Mediterranean climate that resembled other Mediterranean climates. Large scale deforestation and neglect of the land by the Arab residents turned the region into a desert. Only now have the Israelis managed to return it back to some of its former glory. Have you ever read about Jesus' travels through the hills of Galilee, is it a desert they describe? No it isn't.

Honey, I've finished arabic studies, I dare to believe that I've read much more on the subject than you did.

Wow Im sure that diploma makes you a real star on the subject. And of course, no teacher of Arabic studies would be biased .. noooooo ... Oh and I have a degrees in political science, classical studies and ancient and pre-modern near eastern history so I sincerely doubt you've read a fraction of what I have or done a tenth of the research. Furthermore, I doubt you've ever visited Israel or any of the countries you are talking about whereas I have visited: Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, UAE, and briefly Syria. Some of them I have been to more than once.

[Inappropriate text: Removed by Moderator]

 

[irydion]

Iridyon, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about on the subject and should not be commenting in this thread.

Honey, I am PHD student in arabic studies, and regular history student... You could accuse me of being pro-arab, but certainly not of complete ignorance in this subject. Definitely not as big as yours.
Here goes.

Correct history for you: Prior to the mandate going into effect scores of Muslim Arab leaders told their civilians to get out of the way of the fighting so that when they returned they could claim Jewish homes, rape their women and kill the rest.

Why would they do that? What's the use of having the roads of invasion blocked with refugees? Cui prodest? Jews had a definite interest in forcing the local Arabs out,
and their intent to keep there was shown by the refusal to let them back in. Arabs
didn't have any interest in turning the Jews into refugees. Anyway, if local Arabs were
armed, angry savages lusting for jewish blood, they could just stay and take care of the Jews. They were a majority in most of the land.

The entire population of Israel at that time was very small, Jews, Arabs, Christians or otherwise.

1,845 mln is "very small"? It's definitely less than today, but every middle-eastern country increased its population this way. And Israel expelled 0,7-0,9 mln out of this.

Palestinian Refugees. TO be a refugee you must be forced from your home when your country is invaded, not choose to leave your home when you are invading another country as all of the Arab states did in 1948 hours after Israel's creation. Having lost to a rag tag bunch of ill equipped militias these people who had wanted to rape and pillage suddenly became refugees.

Israelis weren't a tag bunch of ill-equipped militias, at all. It's a myth. They've received arms from Czechoslovakia. But it's less important.
UN and all the world recognise these Palestinians as refugees. It does happen pretty often that population flee from the war area. If Palestinians moved en masse out of Palestine to rob the Jews that were in Palestine, that would not only be illogical, but it'd also be the only such action in the world. Please, present some proof.
Ever heard of Dayr yassin (Deir Yassin)? It's the most reknown out of the villages that were exterminated during this war by Israelis. There were UN witnesses to that... etc...
But no, surely the Arabs had no reason to fear, and there must have been some evil, conspiratory reason for them to flee...

Flash forward and Israel is the most progressive, economically successful, democratic, liberal, prosperous nation in the entire region. Women can vote, leave the house without their husbands, be seen in public without hijab, men can get good jobs without having tribal ties etc. etc.

And you think that this means it couldn't have commited attrocities 60 years ago?

Many, many Muslims from surrounding countries saw this prosperity and wanted a piece of it.

Uh, what do you suggest? That people were crowding to palestinian refugee camp, because they hoped they'd get the joy of being Israeli citizens? Oh please... Anyway, don't you have any shame, blaming the victims?

Yassir Arafat the terrorist leader of the 90s and early 2000s was himself a frickin Egyptian!!

he was born in Cairo, but his father was from Gaza. Still much better than all the zionist immigrants, whose forefathers left Palestine 2000 years earlier...

I dont think Israel just let this happen but it's pretty damn tough to stop people from crossing borders even now, forget about back then.

So you think that
1) there weren't really Arab refugees from Palestine, at least not that many
2) Even if there were, they've fled from Palestine as a part of a great conspiracy to exterminate the Jews
3) the refugees that are in Arab lands are really Syrians, Lebaneese, Jordanians that wish to live under the Israeli rule for economical reasons
4) While these sham refugees were living in refugee camps, other Lebaneese, Jordanians, Syrians, Egyptians were en masse crossing the border to become Israeli citizens...

Each and every of these points is absurd, dumb, they are inconsistent too. First you admit that there were Arabs in Palestine that didn't flee. Then you claim that they are in fact Egyptians, Jordanians etc. You admit that Israel didn't let the refugees back in, then you claim they weren't refugees, as well as that, if they wanted, they could cross the border illegally - but, apparently, they did not. You claim all Arabs wanted to exterminate the Jews, but, at the same time, you claim all the Arabs wanted to live under Israeli rule. You claim that, forgetting that 4/5 of Arabs in Palestine and Israel are living in the West Bank and Gaza, which simply means that they couldn't have been lured there by this attiring view of living in Israel, because, simply, they weren't living in Israel until then...
You're one of the least bright persons I've encountered in this forum.

Apart from that, Palestinians look different from beduins and Egyptians, they speak different dialect... I know that for you, it's probably one big arabic crowd, but one can recognise a person from Palestine.

(Must be the most luxurious refugee camps in the world, I bet the people of darfur would not view the permanent structures, roads and other infrastructure as being the same as the refugee camps they live in.

60 years is more than enough to build housing and basic infrastructure

Israel gives money to palestinian refugees in Syria, Lebanon etc? It's something new for me. Please, show me the source for that information.

Anyway, more of your idiocy: first you claim palestinian refugee camps are "luxurious", and have infrastructure and, in the same place, that "they didn't invest in the infrastructure"... You didn't get straight A's, did you...

Direct Source Link (added by moderator): http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

I do not find that site really objective. But, anyway: even if Arabs were the first to resort to violence, that doesn't change the fact that the conflict itself was caused by the unwanted jewish settlement.

So far we have a Syrian as a major "Palestinian" name

Oops, now it's a "Palestinian" Turk and oops there were at least 5000 Jews in Jerusalem's old quarter alone pre-1948 I guess you were wrong again Iridyon. This is becoming a trend.

Palestine was part of the historical Greater Syria, it's natural that the matters of Palestine were concerning Syrians. 1 foreigner for thousands of Arabs born in Palestine is not the same as thousands of zionists born outside of Palestine. Palestinian Arabs may have had leaders who were not born in Palestine; but they themselves were, which can not be said about definite most of the Jews.
Al-Qawuqgi was not a Turk. He was born in Bayrut, Lebanon, so also in the Greater Syria.

Apparently you're also very bad with math.

The numbers that you give for 1880 show 6% of Jews. Indeed, 3% and 6% is VERY different.
But 20 years earlier it was less than 6%

In 1800, it is estimated that Jews were 2,5% of Palestine.
So no, I was not wrong. I just wasn't very precise about the years I refered to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine

Btw, this site also give us the numbers of Arab immigrants to Palestine in pre-1948 period. It is estimated to be between 13.500 for the 1931-1945 period and 50.000 for 1919-1939 period... so not really significant. Also, I believe that you actually was talking about this immigration, but your little fragile mind exagerrated this immigration and moved it to later years, despite complete idiotism of such distortion...

they also did NOT take away the good cities from the Arabs they FOUNDED THE GOOD CITIES.

Uh, we were talking about FARMLANDS, not cities. Ask mommy to explain the difference to you.

[Inappropriate text: Removed by Moderator] I mean this comment almost doesn't even merit a response it's so stupid. Jesus came from Israel, dolt. His followers rose in Israel and expanded throughout the Roman empire. They never left Israel just as Jews never did. Oh and let's not forget the CRUSADES, yes those might have brought a few Christians to the land ... DUH

[Inappropriate text: Removed by Moderator] you forgot your original question and claim. That is that the palestinian Arabs were migrants from near ("far") east. You yourself admit now that they were not. That they were local christian population. As the orthodox nature of Palestine dates back to at least patriarch Juvenal, it means that at least the christian Arabs didn't really move to or from Palestine since early V century. At least. That was the point. I guess it was too hard to grasp for you, sorry, I'll try not to introduce such hard concepts, requiring some knowledge of the history of these lands.

Uhm have you ever heard of the first Jihad? When Muslims spread throughout the middle east converting people by the sword, they killed off most of any remaining native population of kanaanites that actually held to their traditional lifestyle (Kanaanites were pagans and Muslims do not tolerate pagans) But most of them were by now Jews of Christians (and obviously not Muslims since the religion hadn't existed prior). So the Muslims now living in the region came from the areas surrounding Mecca and Medina where the religion rose.

[Inappropriate text: Removed by Moderator] By the time Arabs came, Kanaanites were long gone, and so was paganism. All the population was christian, but some Jews, Samaritans, Sabeans etc. No, muslims did not exterminate the pagans of the Middle east. At least not then. Pseudo-Sabeans of Harran continued to worship the stars until early XI century, when their temple was destroyed, and the zoroastrians of Persia weren't exterminated as well. But why would I expect you to know anything about it.
The population of Greater Syria, Egypt, also Iraq, remained majorly christian for a couple centuries more, according to some until XIII century or so. I've happened to write my thesis about the persecution of christians in this area in XI century, I may not know everything, but I definitely have bigger knowledge on this subject than you do.

Nope, the campaign against Arabia was well under way when Muhammed died. Granted, he was not around to see it's completion but he certainly initiated it.

I guess reading is not your forte either. I didn't mention Arabia, did I...

Actually, yes it did. If you knew anything about human history you'd know that not so long ago the middle east was the cradle of civilization and the world's wheat basket. It was a tropical Mediterranean climate that resembled other Mediterranean climates. Large scale deforestation and neglect of the land by the Arab residents turned the region into a desert. Only now have the Israelis managed to return it back to some of its former glory. Have you ever read about Jesus' travels through the hills of Galilee, is it a desert they describe? No it isn't.

You well know that Jews were, to much extent, not farmers, but shephards. Palestine is not and was not a desert, and where it is (Negev, the south) it was centuries ago as well.

Oh and I have a degrees in political science, classical studies and ancient and pre-modern near eastern history so I sincerely doubt you've read a fraction of what I have or done a tenth of the research. Furthermore, I doubt you've ever visited Israel or any of the countries you are talking about whereas I have visited: Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, UAE, and briefly Syria. Some of them I have been to more than once.

You didn't pay much attention during your studies? Was having fun, did you? Or perhaps it's only that your university was worthless... I don't know. Your claims about Kanaanites in the VII century convince me so. I've spent a year in Syria, spent much time in Jordan, Lebanon and SE Turkey too.
Unlike You, I do not live in a society with so much hatred against islam and so much irrational love for Israel. Which contributes to me being more objective than you are.

[quoted text: Removed by Moderator]

I don't really know what's in this report, and it's of a rather minor importance to the subject too, so I can't promess that.

Notice how I'm a part of discussions all over this forum whereas you are invested specifically in this thread. There is something about the Arab-Israeli conflict you are absurdly interested in that makes you want to come back and hound the pro-Israel side, even though you are ostensibly from Upper-Silesia... That gives serious weight in my mind as to exactly why you are arguing with me in the first place, which is that you are biased, have an irrational hate for Israel, and are unnecessarily invested in winning an anti-Israel argument. I am because I have seen first hand what is going on in Israel and am extensively educated on the subject, and I will always be here to protect my country from falsehoods from the likes of you.

I study arabic, so obviously I am interested in the subject. I am not an admirer of islam - see my discussions with late Andreus if you want a proof. I am not an antisemite, as it's very likely I have some jewish blood in me, and my grandfather himself could be counted as a victim of antisemitic riots of 1968. I am not a leftist. I do not hate Israel. With all my criticisement of the way it was created, and current treatment of Arabs, I see it as a democracy, and that there are many Israelis that would like to help Palestinians.
You, however, profess love for one of the sides of the arguement and claim that your goal is to defend it. Nah, surely that doesn't influence your objectivity.

 

[Kulindahr]

I doubt they have, because they had hardly any interest in that. But even if they did, it's not the flight itself that caused the refugee problem: it was the israeli denial to let them back in. Which was caused by israeli decision to take their land and settle it with Jews. And so they did.

So you defend the aggressors -- again.

You don't really know what the Arabs would do after the war. We know, however, what the Israelis did: expelled and didn't let back in the expulsed / fled Arabs, and took their land. The Arab guilt, even if probable, is a hypothetical one, the Israeli one - very real. Anyway, it's a difference to be chased from a land you live in for a couple of years, and from a land your family lived in for centuries, where your parents and grandparents are buried, where you were born.

We know what they said the goal was: to drive the Jews into the sea, which meant stealing legally obtained land and slaughtering law-abiding people.

The guilt is not hypothetical: when someone commits aggression, that party is responsible for the results. The Arabs attacked first -- they created the refugee problem. And both Arab custom and the Koran required that they extend hospitality, regardless of who caused the problem; common decency demands that since they caused it, they deal with the consequences of their actions.

Yet what they do is continue to rebel against their own customs and religion, by refusing any refugees from Gaza or elsewhere to settle in their countries. The only reason for that is that they want the refugees to continue to be a problem for Israel, draining its resources, counting on Israel's generosity to weaken it.

No they did not. It's an idiotic, biased claim. They didn't start violence against them "because they were Jews", but because they were buying lands and evicting the Arabic tenants, and, later on, because Arabs - rightly! - recognised that the Jews want to establish their own state in this, arabic-inhabited, land.

You ignore history: the violence against Jews began before there were notions of a Jewish homeland state! It was criminal: violence against people lawfully on the land, who had not violated any laws, who had not stolen anything.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'll admit to a mistake here, I meant near eastern not far eastern. Uhm have you ever heard of the first Jihad? When Muslims spread throughout the middle east converting people by the sword, they killed off most of any remaining native population of kanaanites that actually held to their traditional lifestyle (Kanaanites were pagans and Muslims do not tolerate pagans) But most of them were by now Jews of Christians (and obviously not Muslims since the religion hadn't existed prior). So the Muslims now living in the region came from the areas surrounding Mecca and Medina where the religion rose.

Some also came as a result of the Crusades: Saladin brought in Mulsims from elsewhere to settle.

Actually, yes it did. If you knew anything about human history you'd know that not so long ago the middle east was the cradle of civilization and the world's wheat basket. It was a tropical Mediterranean climate that resembled other Mediterranean climates. Large scale deforestation and neglect of the land by the Arab residents turned the region into a desert. Only now have the Israelis managed to return it back to some of its former glory. Have you ever read about Jesus' travels through the hills of Galilee, is it a desert they describe? No it isn't.

The desertification began under the Romans, who after Egypt was annexed began using the area as their bread basket. For political reasons, they overfarmed, and now satellite images show former Roman farms a hundred kilometers into the desert. When the northern African coast began to fail, they began moving the farming around into other areas, depleting them in turn.

Actually, the problem could be reversed if everyone there turned their organic wastes -- including sewage -- into compost, and began spreading it on the fields.

 

[CTorontoC]

Iridyon, your last post was so filled with lies and hateful vitriol that it does not at all merit a response. You are one of those who likes to re-write history. I don't know what they're teaching you in Arab studies but c'mon if you actually have a PHD you must be intelligent enough to know that no professor of Arab studies would ever be pro-Israel and will obviously teach the lies and propaganda taught to all Arab Children. You apparently are as naive as those children, and I feel sorry for you. Ignorance is bliss though. No?

 

[irydion]

So you defend the aggressors -- again.

Do you really believe, that all the 0,7 mln people, including elderly, women, children, were evil genocidial conspirators? That these, mostly unarmed, civilians, were "agressors"?

We know what they said the goal was: to drive the Jews into the sea, which meant stealing legally obtained land and slaughtering law-abiding people.

We don't know what would happen if Arabs succeeded. The mere possibility of such slaughter was no excuse for depriving 0,7 mln of civilians their home and ancestral lands, or at least not letting these people back in when Israel consolidated.

The guilt is not hypothetical: when someone commits aggression, that party is responsible for the results.

Palestinian Arabs did not form a real state, as you've yourself claimed, so why would you blame them for the war? Also, do you claim that the winner takes it all, as long as he's not "the agressor"? he can do everything? Expel the population annex everything he wishes...?

common decency demands that since they caused it, they deal with the consequences of their actions.

That's very convenient to Israel, isn't it: they expel the Arabs from Palestine, and they should dissolve in another countries.

You ignore history: the violence against Jews began before there were notions of a Jewish homeland state! It was criminal: violence against people lawfully on the land, who had not violated any laws, who had not stolen anything.

You claim that prior to 1920 or so, Jews didn't dream of their own state?

 

[irydion]

Iridyon, your last post was so filled with lies and hateful vitriol that it does not at all merit a response. You are one of those who likes to re-write history. I don't know what they're teaching you in Arab studies but c'mon if you actually have a PHD you must be intelligent enough to know that no professor of Arab studies would ever be pro-Israel and will obviously teach the lies and propaganda taught to all Arab Children. You apparently are as naive as those children, and I feel sorry for you. Ignorance is bliss though. No?

Doesn't it occur to you that perhaps you are wrong?

 

[palemale]

You don't really know what the Arabs would do after the war. We know, however, what the Israelis did: expelled and didn't let back in the expulsed / fled Arabs, and took their land. The Arab guilt, even if probable, is a hypothetical one, the Israeli one - very real. Anyway, it's a difference to be chased from a land you live in for a couple of years, and from a land your family lived in for centuries, where your parents and grandparents are buried, where you were born.

Irydion, I see you are from Upper Silesia. Most of it was German prior to WWII. After the war, it became Polish, and the Poland forcibly expelled the Germans and settled the area with Polish settlers. How is that different than what happened in Israel? Are you advocating that your government permit the families of Germans expelled after WWII to return to Upper Silesia and reclaim the properties their families owned for generations?

 

[palemale]

Iridyon, your last post was so filled with lies and hateful vitriol that it does not at all merit a response. You are one of those who likes to re-write history. I don't know what they're teaching you in Arab studies but c'mon if you actually have a PHD you must be intelligent enough to know that no professor of Arab studies would ever be pro-Israel and will obviously teach the lies and propaganda taught to all Arab Children. You apparently are as naive as those children, and I feel sorry for you. Ignorance is bliss though. No?

CTorontoC, I looked over the last 3 or so of Iridyon's posts, and I did not see any hateful vitriol or lies. You may think his facts are not correct, but they are not lies.

While I don't agree with Iridyon's views entirely, he did say he doesn't question Israel's right to exist in peace. Emotion and exaggeration don't win any arguments or change any minds.

I support Israel, but recognize that it's policies regarding the peace process have been very flawed, and at times unethical and immoral. Frankly, Israel right now needs to be saved from itself. The fact is that the right wing elements in Israel are a bigger threat to Israel than the antisemitism of some elements of the European or North American left.

The government of Israel is upset with Obama. That's good, Obama should press them on settlements. Israel needs to halt the expansion of settlements and dismantle every last illegal settlement immediately. Obama won 70% of the Jewish vote here. Netanyahu and other Israeli politicians came here to rally Jewish opinion against Obama and it failed. Netanyahu was quite upset to discover that Obama is much more in sync with the views of American Jews about Israel than is Netanyahu. Let's up that realization moves Israel's current government to get serious about achieving peace.

 

[irydion]

Irydion, I see you are from Upper Silesia. Most of it was German prior to WWII. After the war, it became Polish, and the Poland forcibly expelled the Germans and settled the area with Polish settlers. How is that different than what happened in Israel? Are you advocating that your government permit the families of Germans expelled after WWII to return to Upper Silesia and reclaim the properties their families owned for generations?

That is a very good question. I've thought about the analogy too, especially since my grandparents lived in an apartament left by some Germans, and they themselves were expelled from Ukraine.

Of course, I could well and not without a reason argue that the comparison is flawed, because it's hard to compare palestinian civilians to nazi germans, and nazi german treatment of Poles 1939-45 to palestinian treatment of Jews (although my blind adversaries wouldn't agree, probably), especially since in areas such as East Prussia, Pomerania, New Marchy and Lower Silesia they've had over 50% support, that the Germans fled from Red Army, not Poles, that much of it was evacuated by Germans themselves, that the expulsion (unlike in Czech Republic) was not a polish decision, but USA-UK-USSR one, etc. There are big analogies and big differences too. But lets leave that aside.

I've already written that, while I think creation of Israel, at least in this shape, was a mistake 60 years ago, its destruction today would have been wrong too. The same, I think it was outrageous not to let the refugees back in immediately after the war and through the next years... but now? The ones making the decisions are long dead, so are most of the original expelees/refugees, and Israeli children were born in this land. So I don't think the return of Palestinians to Israel is feasible. I wonder if they'd actually want that, if these lands remained israeli, not palestinian. I am sure, however, that, due to the israeli responsability and its relative wealth, it's Israel that should be responsible for recompensation to the expelled and their families, which should be paid both for the properties and for the fact of being an expellee. I think it'd pay back. Some perhaps could be settled in former jewish colonies in the West Bank, I don't know. The ony country where I don't see Palestinians getting citizenship, is Lebanon, because of its denominational structure. That's a problem.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why would they do that? What's the use of having the roads of invasion blocked with refugees? Cui prodest? Jews had a definite interest in forcing the local Arabs out,
and their intent to keep there was shown by the refusal to let them back in. Arabs
didn't have any interest in turning the Jews into refugees. Anyway, if local Arabs were
armed, angry savages lusting for jewish blood, they could just stay and take care of the Jews. They were a majority in most of the land.

The reason is quite simple: they didn't want to have to worry about who they were shooting.

 

[Kulindahr]

Iridyon, your last post was so filled with lies and hateful vitriol that it does not at all merit a response. You are one of those who likes to re-write history. I don't know what they're teaching you in Arab studies but c'mon if you actually have a PHD you must be intelligent enough to know that no professor of Arab studies would ever be pro-Israel and will obviously teach the lies and propaganda taught to all Arab Children. You apparently are as naive as those children, and I feel sorry for you. Ignorance is bliss though. No?

I have to second this.

Anyone who has facts presented but bulldozes over them with theories and challenges based on why someone would have done something when in fact they already did it.

I don't see how anyone who can throw away what was presented in a statement and substitute something else, and challenge it based on the substitution, ever got a PhD, except by kissing up to professors and spouting back what those professors wanted to hear.