The solution to the "palesitinian problem"

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Does this make my new friend Eliad an anti semite in your view ?




posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


There were plenty of massacres in Israel before Israel became a state in 1948, so clearly the states existence isnt the issue.

[light]
  • 1938 Tiberias Massacre

    After infiltrating the Jewish Kiryat Shmuel neighbourhood, Arab rioters killed 19 Jews in Tiberias, 11 of whom were children.[1] During the massacre, 70 armed Arabs set fire to Jewish homes and the local synagogue.

    Commentary: so was this because of Israels existence? Hmmm?

    Save me your lies. The arabs lie, and more than one PLO official is on record saying they want to reduce Israel to indefencible borders, ie; pre-1967 borders.

  • 1929 Hebron massacre

    The Hebron massacre refers to the killing of sixty-seven Jews on 23 and 24 August 1929 in Hebron, then part of the British Mandate of Palestine, by Arabs incited to violence by rumors that Jews were massacring Arabs

    Commentary: In 1929, the Mufti of Jerusalem inspired attacks that are similar to todays PLO terrorism. Hamas, Fatah, Hizbollah- they are full of psychopathic murderers who will say anything to distort the truth. This was in 1929, 19, years before Israel came into existence.

  • 1929 Safed massacre

    The 1929 Safed massacre took place on 29 August during the 1929 Palestine riots. Eighteen Jews were killed (some sources say twenty) and eighty wounded.[1] The main Jewish street was looted and burned

    Commentary: Yes, amazingly believable your theory, that if Israel accedes to pre 1967 borders, Arab terror will stop. Do you see how common massacres were in pre-1948 Israel?

  • 1929 Palestine Riots

    Four Arabs and five Jews were killed, while wounded were 216 Jews, 18 critically; 23 Arabs, one critically. The majority of the victims were members of the old Yishuv, non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews. About 300 Jews from the Old City were evacuated.

    Meinertzhagen claimed, to the Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon, that a number of anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist officers in the military administration had initiated the riots to prove the Jewish national home policy had no chance of success.

    In particular, Meinertzhagen asserted that Allenby's chief of staff, Colonel Bertie Harry Waters-Taylor, had given explicit instructions to Mohammad Amin al-Husayni on how to demonstrate to the world that Palestinian Arabs would not tolerate Jewish rule.

  • Jaffa Riots of 1921

    The Jaffa riots were a series of violent anti-Jewish riots in Palestine on May 1-7, 1921, in which Arab mobs murdered Jewish inhabitants, destroyed property and engaged in wholesale looting. The rioting began in Jaffa and spread to other cities.

    The riot resulted in the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs, with 146 Jews and 73 Arabs being wounded. Most Arab casualties resulted from clashes with British forces attempting to restore order.

    Safed Massacre of 1834

    On June 15, 1834 [1], Arab Muslim rioters went on a rampage, massacre [2] [3], mass-rape [4] on Jews in Safed Palestine (Israel).

    The inciter, a local Muslim clergyman, self proclaimed Islamic "prophet" Muhammad Damoor, "foresaw" the massacre which he agitated to.[2][5] From his "prophecies":

    "the true Believers would rise up in just wrath against the Jews, and despoil them of their gold, and their silver, and their jewels." [6]

    The pogrom, went on for 33 days [7]. It caused for the Jewish community to be dwindled, many Jews were beaten to death, or severely wounded, accounts tell of blinding men, torturing men & women. It is not clear how many exactly died, but historians assert the number is "high." that to say that 500 died, would be way too little..

    The plunder was repeated in 1838[7]. It was during the Druze revolt against Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt [9], the joined Muslims-Druze mob were using the defenseless Jews as scapegoats. The Druze rebels thought the Jews possessed hidden treasures, local Muslims encouraged them to attack, these locals also forced the Jews to hand them a written oath stating that they were—actually-- "protecting" them. The repeated, second plunder lasted for 3 days

    edit on 22-2-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



  • posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 02:51 PM
    link   
    reply to post by bigyin
     


    Of course not.



    posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:22 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by dontreally
    reply to post by bigyin
     


    Of course not.


    Thats good to know, it's just I've heard some Zionists claim that anyone who does not defend Isreal and it's policies to the hilt are anti semite.



    posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 04:31 PM
    link   
    reply to post by dontreally
     



    Thanks for he historical review.

    So what's the up to date score now ? have more Jews been killed or have the Muslims lost more lives ?

    It's hard to tell because you havn't included all the attocities carried out by Jews.

    Are you going to include those in the next lesson ?



    posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:00 PM
    link   
    reply to post by dontreally
     


    I think you need to read my posts more closely


    You wrote:


    Your people have every right to be in Israel,


    I wrote:


    Yes, Palestine is the place where the Jews should be.


    You wrote:


    exaggeration of numbers, or, in the case of Palestines displaced population, only 15% of it was living in Jewish settled palestine. The other 85% were immigrants from Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, the Hedjaz, Iraq and as far away as Alegeria and Sudan, aswell as inmigrants from other parts of palestine.


    I wrote:


    the thing about Palestine at the time is that it wasn't regarded as a populated area, but rather a mostly inhabitated land, full of nomadic tribes which roamed the whole area of Palestine, Jordan, Syria, etc (talking about the 19th century here)...


    I'm not just a Jew, I'm an Israeli, was born here, raised here, served in the IDF, and was released only a few years ago- I understand this conflict and all of its complexities better than any of you can.
    My ex is an Arab, the one before her a Muslim (When I lived in Singapore), I have many friends of all shapes, colors, sizes, religions, political affiliations, and origins.

    I have grown to become a right wing, left wing, liberal confused Zionist. The more I learn the more torn I am.

    But above all I'm a realist. I see where the wind is blowing, I see what we need to do, where we need to go, where we need to get out of, I see the bad, I see the good, and there is a lot of it on both sides.

    Guilt has never been part of the equation.



    and a saying of Muhommads in the Quran "War is deception"

    I believe he stole that from the bible- בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה which means in trickery you shall make war.



    posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:52 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Eliad
     

    Have you read "from time immemorial, the origins of the Israel/Palestine conflict" ?



    בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה


    I dont know where you get that translation from. You may know a great deal about MODERN Hebrew, but i doubt you know much about biblical Hebrew.

    The root of that word is Halak - to go, and is the source of Halakah - Jewish law, which means "to go [in life with Torah]".

    Whoeever told you that means trickery must not have a good grasp of Hebrew. There are many more relevant words for trickery in the Hebrew lexicon.



    posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:48 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by dontreally
    ... A very very small number of British politicans were zionists, and even than, when the Jews needed the mandate most, when they needed the British to honor the basic premise of their even being granted authority in palestine, from 1939 - 46, only 70,000 Jews entered Palestine. Hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees were rejected and many others, literally on the verge of death, deported, naked, hungry and destined for extermination, were callously kicked out of their own homeland, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands (and this doesnt even take into account the evian or bermuda conferences, or Inter-governmental committe, or the later war refugee board which the british made every effort to hinder in its purpose). The sinking of the struma (killing 800 Jews, 200 of whom were children) is another sadistic example of British indifference to the sufferrings of Europes Jews. (they torpedoed the ship)

    Anthony Eden, the foreign minister at the time said "If i had to chose, i prefer arabs over Jews". Another British politician said "9/10s of British officials are against the zionist cause"

    The Jews had no say over Palestine, because the British captured Palestine from the Ottoman Turks in 1917 after 9 months of bloody fighting resulting in the deaths of 18,000 British soldiers. If the Jews were among the 18,000 deads then they might have some say over Palestine. Otherwise , the British can tear up the Balfour Declaration at anytime, if they wish.



    posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:17 AM
    link   
    reply to post by dontreally
     


    No I haven't, I read articles, debates, stuff like that when I get the urge..

    As for the translation-

    תחבולות is Tachbulot, the root is חבלה Chabala which is sabotage, and it means trickery, schemes, subterfuge, only in a more clever kind of way..

    KJV translates it to For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: (proverbs 24:6).

    I like this verse, it's an important military value.

    Halach is הלך by the way.

    Nobody "told me" it was trickery, this is a very well known verse, I learned it in the army when learning about strategies, and it used to be the Mossad's slogan.



    posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 08:28 AM
    link   
    Israel is a military State right now just as Egypt was and Libya is. The so called 'democracy' in Israel is just a mask of military body and mind of Israel, but there is still hope as i have some friends in Israel who are striving for a more free Israel. I hope the fire of resistance will spread soon to Israel .
    edit on 23-2-2011 by deccal because: (no reason given)



    posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:35 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Eliad
     


    Oh sorry. It was late when i read that. I confused the Bet for a Kaf

    In any case, you cant understand history by reading articles. If i could, i would send you my copy of "from time immemorial" because it is that important a book to read.



    posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 09:41 AM
    link   
    reply to post by deccal
     


    The new governments in those Islamic countries are just as western controlled as the ones they ousted. Who even established those governments in the first place? Britain and France, mainly. And the world pretends that didnt even happen.

    History is important to know.

    As for Israel, i agree its a puppet state. And their notion of democracy is even more undermined by the twisted form of parliamentary government they established. In Israel, theres no individual ridings, unlike in much smaller countries like denmark, netherlands or luxembourg. In Israel, so the establishment has argued, its necessary only to vote for the parties, each of which runs under a certain platform. By the time a government is elected, each party has to dilute their message in order to form a government, and therfore all promises made during the campaign are thrown out the _ Its the most inefficient - and deliberately so - governmental system in the western world.

    I do believe such a revolt could happen in Israel, but for much different reasons and by a much different base - the Orthodox minority who is quickly becoming a majority.



    posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 10:33 AM
    link   
    The only real solution is a separate Palestinian state, with Jerusalem being similar to Berlin, by being in both states. Thing is, neither party will agree to it, so we're always going to be at a stalemate, and a constant state of war between the two sides.

    While I'd love to see an end of bloodshed on both sides, I believe the Palestinians should first agree to an established Palestinian state (sans Jerusalem), and then push for further demands after showing the world they can be peaceful neighbors. Israel isn't going anywhere, and the sooner the Palestinians realize this, the sooner they can get on with building their own state.



    posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:22 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Eliad
     


    Also, your mentioning that verse in the bible is mistaken.

    ALL war must be conducted through deception. That is basic common sense and a principle in all military strategy books.

    The problem is with Judaisms view of non Jews, vs Islams view of 'infidels', or dhimmis.

    The former is incredibly tolerant and indeed has no program or desire to convert them. All thats desired is that man subscribe to a system of ethics called the 7 laws of Noah.

    The latter conversely identifies all non believers as enemies of Allah, and therefore fair ground in Jihad. Thus, in all situations with non muslims, the rule of "war is deception" applies.



    posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 11:45 AM
    link   
    reply to post by Gazrok
     


    Than how should we assess the facts?

    In pre-1948 palestine, the sheer PRESENCE of Jews in the muslim dominated world (despite the fact of its historical connections with only Judaism, and only later appropriated by Islam) was enough to incite massacres.

    I listed the individual cases of massacres above. These were simple Jewish communities, and yet their being dhimmis and demanding equal status - which the Quran and Islamic law has since its beginnings regarded as strictly prohibited, and an affront to Allah has motivated radical islamic groups to commit horrific acts of terror.

    What people fail to understand is that there is no moderate Islam. Radical Islam is used and takes advantage of western liberalism and relativism to accomplish what it needs to accomplish.

    For anyone to tell me that Palestine just wants to be recognized as a nation, when the PLO charter (15th point) calls for the destruction of Israel - of a state with a Jewish identity, and also threatens to kick out or murder all Jews from European countries, im left completely speechless. As if the past doesnt denounce all these ridiculous claims. The Arabs had their chance to a state in '48, but couldnt achieve it because Palestine, as all educated people know, wasnt a distinct people, like the Kurds, or Jews are, but an administrative zone. A name ressurrected from the Roman past which has more application and relevance to JEWS than to arabs. The name itself is from 'philistine". The early PLO strategists understood they had to create a 'myth' for the palestinian arabs, of a "palestinian" people, with a spiritual, material and historical connection to the land of Palestine. All of this is patently false but nonethless necessary to create that 'national spirit' which was so lacking in 1948. Thus the propaganda wars waged by the Arabs and abetted by the UN in attacking the historical and factual existence of a Jewish connection to Palestine, as opposed to the lie of an Arab connection.

    Anyone who has read up on the history of the holy land knows and understands that. Historically, more greeks, Turks, Balkans, Circassians, Persians, Germans have lived in the Holy land than Arabs.

    So, how can Israel trust the Arabs, when they have a track record of exploiting peace treaties and other 'agreements' to advance their agenda, and affect the end they desire; the destruction of Israel and all world Jewry. Should we just ignore and forget the many massacres that occurred in palestine before the state came into existence? Should we ignore the fact that Jews were oppressed cruelly in muslim lands? And i dont want to hear lies of the great Jewishv renessaince under Islamic rule. Maimonides left Fez in Morocco because his life was threatened for daring to tell the Jews of morocco to lie about being muslims if it will mean not being killed or forcibly converted (or like what was done in some Islamic governments. Jewish Children born to a mother without a father were taken by the state and given to a muslim family). Judah He Levi, the great spanish poet was assassinated by a muslim on his way to the Holy land (actually, just when he entered was he killed).

    please, for the love of justice and sanity, a two state solution cannot be good for Israel, and "islam" or the arabs, will not recognize its right to exist. It is not accountable to western interests (which in any case are pro arab, and anti-Jewish).



    posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:55 PM
    link   
    reply to post by dontreally
     

    It seriously scares me when people are able to justifiably alter their perception of reality and history when it doesn't agree with their beliefs.

    You keep dismissing the muslims that live/d in Palestine: "Palestinian people as a 'people' didn't exist", "There were actually way more jews there", "they should be moved", "they have no right to the area", etc. It makes one wonder if you would feel the need to jump through such hoops if it weren't for your religious beliefs.

    Are you seriously denying that there were Palestinian people (arabs and/or muslims) who lived in that area, and had lived in that area for over a thousand years? Are you denying that they have a right to that land (that they have been living on for over a thousand years)? Why should they have to move? Would you even consider that such an option was even conceivable if someone approached an American living in the US and told them "Yeah, the native americans have a greater right to this land of yours, and since you have no historical connection to this land, certainly nothing on the level that native americans have, why don't you move to Georgia in the Caucasus, where your people originally came from?". It is absurd!

    Oh, and by the way, Maimonides moving from Fez doesn't really prove anything about the intrinsic hatred of muslims for jews, especially considering that he moved to Egypt, and served a muslim king who was noted for his fighting against crusaders who wanted to recapture Jerusalem. It is an undeniable fact of history that the jews (and christians) were treated better in the muslim lands than the jews were treated in Christian lands.


    PS: I'm not sure in what sense "The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine" could mean "threatens to kick out or murder all Jews from European countries". Also, there is no "war is deception" anywhere in the Quran.
    edit on 23-2-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



    posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:36 PM
    link   
    reply to post by babloyi
     





    Are you seriously denying that there were Palestinian people (arabs and/or muslims) who lived in that area, and had lived in that area for over a thousand years?


    According to British Mandate statistics, as well as Ottoman statistics, the Jewish settled areas of western Palestine, along the coast had an Arab population of 92,300 circa 1893. These people were natives of the region and may have been their for hundreds of years. However, the entire lavant region was known for being a land where people constantly moved to the disagreeable conditions of desert living. If there was scant rain in an area for along period of time, the people would get up and move to another, more fertile region. This among other reasons (invasions from desert tribes, extortionist taxation) was why Palestine was so harsh to live in. By 1947, illegal immigration into palestine in search for Jobs being created by Jewish investment swelled the arab population to 462,900, an unprecedented increase of 400%. The British understated the significance of immigration in the explosion of the palestine population in Jewish settled areas, probably because they wanted the Arab population to grow. They refused in this 30 year period to institute identity card systems or any significant security to prevent Arab immigration. A Syrian official stated that in 1933 alone "in a few months" 30,000 Huarani (syrians) migrated to Palestine, displacing the Jews who the Jewish investment and job creation was reserved for.




    It is an undeniable fact of history that the jews (and christians) were treated better in the muslim lands than the jews were treated in Christian lands.


    You are an ignoramus. The Jews were reduced to being a dhimmi in muslim lands. By 1951, when Muslims ALLOWED Jews to leave their countries, they all fled AND LEFT THEIR PROPERTY! They fled from the abuse, and disparagement of having to walk by a muslim on his LEFT (like satan) and being forbidden to ride a horse, or to have a nice looking house, and virtually no legal rights. Do you know how many massacres occurred in muslim lands in Islams History against Jews? The Jews were akin to a southerners conception of the black. The Jew was the arabs "'n-word'".

    Read up on the history of the Syrian Jew, or Egyptian Jew or yemenite Jew, or Bagdadi Jew..Who just 40 years ago were being publically hanged.

    Maimonides only recieved the treatment that he did because first of all, Saladin wasnt an arab, but a kurd; he was better disposed to Jews than Arabs were. And second of all, he was unique in that he was an incredible mind with tremendous knowledge that even the great Saladin couldnt not take advantage of.




    Zionist and imperialist aggression

    Way to nitpick at what you can take advantage of. Just ignore the massacres in Palestine before Israel was made a state. Ignore the Islamic extremism and insanity.

    Given the nature of that language, a logical conclusion of "Zionist and imperialist aggression" means all Jews who are not Palestinian born (as if Jews who were palestinian born would want to stay and live in a palestinian state ruled by sharia law. They would run for their lives!) as in article 6 of the charter. If those european Jews refuse to leave (citing they are "zionists". A word that is virtually indistinguishable from Jew) they would be murdered, as muslims show no compunction about.
    edit on 23-2-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



    posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 02:04 PM
    link   
    reply to post by dontreally
     


    Originally posted by dontreally
    According to British Mandate statistics, as well as Ottoman statistics...

    EVEN if what you say is true (which it isn't, really), all this is excuses and digressions. You didn't answer the question of mine which you quoted.



    Originally posted by dontreally
    You are an ignoramus. The Jews were reduced to being a dhimmi in muslim lands. By 1951, when Muslims ALLOWED Jews to leave their countries, they all fled AND LEFT THEIR PROPERTY!

    Nope. They didn't. There are still jews EVEN IN IRAN!



    Originally posted by dontreally
    They fled from the abuse, and disparagement of having to walk by a muslim on his LEFT (like satan) and being forbidden to ride a horse, or to have a nice looking house, and virtually no legal rights. Do you know how many massacres occurred in muslim lands in Islams History against Jews? The Jews were akin to a southerners conception of the black. The Jew was the arabs "'n-word'".

    Errr....sorry. No. Nonsense. Might have happened under the rule of one king or one dynasty. Certainly wasn't as pandemic, consistent and widespread as christian persecution of jews. It is funny you call me an ignoramus, all the while ignoring the history of the time, EVEN FROM THE JEWS THEMSELVES, like Maimonides (and Jacob bin Joab for another example). Even the jews who were critical of the muslims (all the while living under muslim rule) agreed that they were better than the christians!



    Originally posted by dontreally
    Maimonides only recieved the treatment that he did because first of all, Saladin wasnt an arab, but a kurd; he was better disposed to Jews than Arabs were. And second of all, he was unique in that he was an incredible mind with tremendous knowledge that even the great Saladin couldnt not take advantage of.

    You haven't really responded to my point. If the lot of Jews in islamic countries was so bad, why did Maimonides move from one supposedly islamic country to another? Why didn't he go deeper into Europe to the supposedly nicer Christians
    .



    Originally posted by dontreally
    Way to nitpick at what you can take advantage of. Just ignore the massacres in Palestine before Israel was made a state. Ignore the Islamic extremism and insanity.

    And I suppose jewish massacres of muslims in Palestine before it was made a state (and after) never happened, right?




    Originally posted by dontreally
    Given the nature of that language, a logical conclusion of "Zionist and imperialist aggression" means all Jews who are not Palestinian born (as if Jews who were palestinian born would want to stay and live in a palestinian state ruled by sharia law. They would run for their lives!) as in article 6 of the charter. If those european Jews refuse to leave (citing they are "zionists". A word that is virtually indistinguishable from Jew) they would be murdered, as muslims show no compunction about.

    Ah. I understand. So it is your assumptions and misperceptions that somehow create and insert "murder and exodus" into somewhere it never was. Nice. I suppose the US policy involving the elimination of Communism in the 50s also actually meant they wanted to murderise them if they resisted expulsion.



    Originally posted by dontreally
    (citing they are "zionists". A word that is virtually indistinguishable from Jew)

    Many, many, many jews would disagree with you.
    edit on 23-2-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)
    edit on 23-2-2011 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



    posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:30 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Gazrok
    I believe the Palestinians should first agree to an established Palestinian state (sans Jerusalem),


    Have you noticed how Israel is pushing hard for Jerusalem to recognised as it's capital city.

    During recent ME uprisings the BBC reported from Jerusalem and quoting Israeli leaders as if thats where they were.

    Zionist controlled websites tell us it's the capital of Israel, although the rest of the world do not recognise it.

    Zionist controlled publishers do the same.

    For everyone else the capital of Israel is Tel Aviv.

    For Israel to try and claim it as their own I find quite offensive and an affront to other religions who regard it as a holy place.



    posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:40 PM
    link   

    What people fail to understand is that there is no moderate Islam.


    I'd have to differ there. I lived in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for a couple of years, and knew many muslims, and they were all very moderate. None of them wanted death to Israel, etc. To be honest, I doubt most of them even cared what happened beyond the border of their city or town. Moderates see the jihad as a war of words, it's the radicals that see it as a literal war.

    I'll grant you that the PLO leadership would love to see Israel wiped off the map, but they also need to realize it isn't going to happen. I'll even agree that they really don't even want their own state, but want Israel.

    They need to COMPROMISE. Not likely to happen, I know, but they need to realize that Israel is there to stay, and no amount of wishing its destruction is going to matter. The Israelis have already realized the Palestinians aren't going anywhere, and have tried to broker an agreement...but they aren't completely innocent either. Both sides have ignored treaties and retaliated even when attacks could not be linked to official parties responsible. I have no desire to see casualties (especially civilians) on either side...but they have to come to an agreement, and then stick with it. In the past, even when this has happened, all it takes is one screwup on either side, and we're back to square one with it.


    For Israel to try and claim it as their own I find quite offensive and an affront to other religions who regard it as a holy place.


    It's in their territory, so they could theoretically make that call.

    Kind of like Istanbul...."Istanbul not Constantinople, now it's Instanbul, not Constantinople...Long time ago..." as the song goes..."Nobody's business but the Turks" (band is They Might Be Giants, if you've never heard the song).
    edit on 23-2-2011 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)





    top topics
     
    1
    << 1  2    4  5  6 >>

    log in

    join