Israeli Government Ads Warn Against Marrying Non-Jews

[irydion]

I have to second this.

Anyone who has facts presented

what are the "facts" you refer to? That Arabs started the violence? I didn't deny such possibility, I disagreed with your naive and biased interpretation, that they did that "because they hated Jews". No, they did that because their economical and political interests were in peril.
///
Btw of facts, ever heard of plan Dalet?

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

Mounting operations against enemy population centers located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force. These operations can be divided into the following categories:

Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.

Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the. armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.

I didn't get PHD yet.
[Inappropriate text: Removed by Moderator]

 

[irydion]

Why do you want all to be more pro-Israeli than Ben-Gurion?

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country ... There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it is simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion#cite_note-Goldman-0

Nahum Goldman, 'The Jewish Paradox', translated by Steve Cox, 1978, ISBN 0-448-15166-9, p. 98, p. 100, p. 99


Also,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...22&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3#

 

[Kulindahr]

what are the "facts" you refer to? That Arabs started the violence? I didn't deny such possibility, I disagreed with your naive and biased interpretation, that they did that "because they hated Jews". No, they did that because their economical and political interests were in peril.
///
Btw of facts, ever heard of plan Dalet?

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

Yes, I have.

If you actually read the article in Wiki, you wouldn't have given the link: it plainly shows that the Arabs began the violence and that the 'Hebrews' acted to defend themselves.
Even the bit you plucked out to quote isn't anything out of the ordinary, militarily: when threatened with attack, you neutralize positions from which you can be threatened, you seek out pre-positioned forces and get rid of them, and chase off those who aided and sheltered them.

It's actually a rather restrained plan, given the announced intent of the Arab states to drive the Jews into the sea: if it had been written with the kind of standards the Jews' enemies were using, they would have just killed villagers along with any anti-Jewish military personnel they were sheltering. That wouldn't have been terribly extreme, anyway; if for other than humanitarian reasons you give shelter and aid to combatants, you can be considered a combatant yourself; you are no longer an innocent civilian.

 

[irydion]

Yes, I have.

If you actually read the article in Wiki, you wouldn't have given the link: it plainly shows that the Arabs began the violence and that the 'Hebrews' acted to defend themselves.

It says that according to some historians, the plan was aimed at defence, while according to others it was aimed at conquest and expulsion of Palestinians. It says much that you've just ignored the uncomfortable part.
When it comes to that the Arabs started the fights: I've already commented on that earlier. It gives no excuse for mass ethnic cleansing Jews commited.

Even the bit you plucked out to quote isn't anything out of the ordinary, militarily: when threatened with attack, you neutralize positions from which you can be threatened, you seek out pre-positioned forces and get rid of them, and chase off those who aided and sheltered them.

It's actually a rather restrained plan, given the announced intent of the Arab states to drive the Jews into the sea: if it had been written with the kind of standards the Jews' enemies were using, they would have just killed villagers along with any anti-Jewish military personnel they were sheltering. That wouldn't have been terribly extreme, anyway; if for other than humanitarian reasons you give shelter and aid to combatants, you can be considered a combatant yourself; you are no longer an innocent civilian.

So you think it's perfectly OK to burn the villages down, expulse their population and settle with one's own people? Should USA accept this "normal" and "rather restraint" strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq?

You also think that all these 0,7-0,9 mln people, 3/4 of Palestinians at this time, were giving aid to the combatants? And does that mean jewish civilians should've been treaten as combatants too, because they were helping Haganah etc?

Anyway, weren't you claiming Arabs were leaving Palestine out of their free will, as a part of a giant conspiration to exterminate the Jews? hm? Those whose villages were burned by Jews and who were forcibly expulsed as well?

Also, isn't that strange? After all, according to you, arab armies needed no aid from local Arabs, and told them to go away.

 

[palemale]

One has to divorce the idea of ancestral homeland from the reality of what is happening today. Ancestral homeland means nothing, and gives no one any rights whatsoever. Kosovo is the ancestral homeland of the Serbs, do they have the right to expel Albanians and take it back? Crimea was historically Russian (they stole if fair and square). Yet, it is now part of the Ukraine. Does Russia have the right to take it back by force? There are more examples of "lost ancestral homelands" then all of us together could come up with in this thread. It is a recipe for continued war and unstable countries.

What matters is that after WWII, there were millions of displaced people throughout Europe. Many were Jews who went to Palestine to join other Jewish settlers who arrived there earlier in the 20th Century. Those that arrived there earlier in the 20th Century joined established Jewish populations. A period of conflict ensued between the Jews and Arabs. The Jews won. Earlier, the Arabs had supported and collaborated with the Nazis. This led, I would assume, to a fair amount of sympathy for the Jews amongst the countries that defeated Germany. To the victor goes the spoils. We many not like that maxim as a governing principle, but it has resulted, I hate to use the term, in facts on the ground. Put another way, "you cannot un-ring a bell."

What matters now is not religion, ancestral homeland or the bible. Those concepts are distractions based on the basest instincts in human interactions. What matters is that people are treated fairly, humanely and with respect and dignity. That requires pressure by honest power brokers, compromise by both sides and a two state solution.

 

[palemale]

You're wrong, and you would be a hypocrite if you were in the same situation. But you aren't so, it isn't a problem for you, so you don't know how it really is. By that logic, you also advocate that exiled Palestinians should just be happy where they are and stop complaining that they can't go back to their lands.

I don't think Palestinians have an inherent right to settle within the borders of Israel. I think it would be wise to give individual Palestinians, or their heirs, who can prove that they lost property some compensation. That should be a part of the final settlement. But why should the fact that parts of modern day Israel was the ancestral homeland of the Jews give them any rights to the land? It doesn't. What gives them the right to the land is that, for better or worse, they settled there after being displaced by war and conflict, built a country, and gave birth to children who have known no other homeland. They have defended that country in a series of wars against much more populous neighbors who were bent on their destruction.

Do the Greeks have rights to those parts of Western Turkey that were their ancestral homeland? Do the Germans have rights to the parts of Western Poland and the Czech Republic that were part of their ancestral homeland? Do the Tatars of Crimea, whom Stalin expelled from Crimea, have the right to their ancestral homelands in the Crimea, even though they are the citizens of Russia and Crimea is part of the Ukraine. If we want chaos in international relations, the answer is yes. If we want rational international relations, based on the rule of law and peaceful conflict resolution, the answer is no.

Truly, arguing Israel's right to the land of Israel based on it being their ancestral homeland is a losing argument. It is an argument right-wing Israeli settlers use to hold onto the West Bank, even though I suspect a majority of Israeli's are fine with the idea of giving up the West Bank.

 

[irydion]

I absolutely have a right to return to my ancestral homeland that is my ethnic heritage, no matter what you say, nothing is going to change that.

OK, but why you apply that right to return to ancestral homeland to Jews only? Why not to palestinian Arabs as well?

You're wrong, and you would be a hypocrite if you were in the same situation. But you aren't, so, it isn't a problem for you, and therefore you don't know how it really is. By that logic, you also advocate that exiled Palestinians should just be happy where they are and stop complaining that they can't go back to the lands their predecessors were living on 60 years ago.

That is actually my stance, and now you yourself, by that claim, prove it consistent and logical. If I demand compensations for Palestinians from Israelis, it is because Israelis are directly responsible for their refugee status, and because not many generations have passed since the exodus; some people expelled/fled are still alive.

 

[palemale]

I see some common ground emerging here. The problem with your view, jockboy, is that there is a logical inconsistency. If there is a two state solution, does not each state have the right to control its borders and who is permitted to settle there. Wouldn't Israel have the right to prohibit large numbers of Palestinian Arabs from outside its borders from settling within its borders, even if those Arabs considered Israel their ancestral homeland? By the same token, if the Palestinians establish a state in the Gaza and West Bank, recognized by the UN and by Israel, wouldn't they have the right to prohibit Jews from settling in Hebron, even though many consider Hebron part of their ancestral homeland? That's the point I was making, not that you would not have a right to settle in Israel, you obviously do.

 

[nafhoosier]

Hence my support for a two state solution.

Don't worry.

There are absolutely no flaws in your argument.

Everything you say I (and most people here) seem to agree with.

Apparently, some people don't know how to negotiate and only want to give Palestinians what they want.

 

[palemale]

Right JockBoy87 - but seriously
1) Do you care what happens over there?
2) Can you actually yourself do anything about it?
3) Does it really affect you?

What amazes me is that this thread has gone to 4 pages. What's the big deal? I mean come on there are more important things to discuss unless I am sadly mistaken and most in this thread live in Israel and their lives are affected. That would be understandable.
Shall I start a thread on birthing issues in Suriname? Seems just a relevant to me...that is... non-relevant. Just IMO so don't shoot me for it!!!

It is only the most intractable and important dispute in international relations for virtually every country in the world. If you don't understand the importance of peace in the Middle-East, what more is there to say?

Of course, we could always concern ourselves with what the celebrities are wearing on the red carpet instead.

 

[TX-Beau]

Of course, we could always concern ourselves with what the celebrities are wearing on the red carpet instead.

What do Israelis wear on the Red Carpet? Are Palestinians allowed beyond the velvet rope? Aren't carpets ancestral to Arabs?

(ducking)

 

[irydion]

Don't worry.

There are absolutely no flaws in your argument.

Everything you say I (and most people here) seem to agree with.

Apparently, some people don't know how to negotiate and only want to give Palestinians what they want.

No flaws, obviously. He claims Galilea was "always historically Jewish" because it was historically Jewish 2000 years ago. He claims it was majorly jewish in 1947/8, while stats show Jews were 13-33% minority there, and spills israeli propaganda such as: the Palestinians fleeing from jewish fighters / expelled by them were really genocidial vultures. etc. Nah, no flaws at all.

I doubt you've made the effort to read the thread. If you had, you'd have known that people criticising Israel here haven't been "giving Palestinians what they want". Palestinians would want no Israel at all. Palestinians would want right of return for the Palestinian Arabs ethnically cleansed out of Palestine by Jews in 1948 and 1967. I do not support that, although I understand palestinian feelings.