It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The role of Zionism during the Holocaust.

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 04:39 AM
a one state solution is actually a very good proposal.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 05:49 AM
reply to post by gravitational

Wow... I''ve never seen a more over-simplified and propagandised version of events: The fact is that most Israeli government in their history have been reluctant to even seize control of the West Bank prior to the June-1967 war as this would mean that the democratic nature of Israel would not be preserved or subverted. Infact if you were to make the whole Middle East into a democratic state of Israel, you would have... guess what... exactly what you don't want: No Jewish state as the Jews would me the minority in a Majority Arab Middle East.

The video is an excuse for justifying a Greater Israel, which inherently would be non-Democratic, unless all of the Middle East was turned into an Arab state (including Israel). Israel can incorporate only a specific number- which is rather small- of Muslims and Arabs into Israel if it is to maintain it's Jewish and Democratic nature.

A one state solution under the guise of Israel is worth no more as an idea which carrier merit then the Zimbabwe dollar would as an international standard currency.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 06:37 AM
reply to post by SpeachM1litant

You can't even tell sarcasm when it's right in your face.

Nope, this video isn't advocating a one Jewish state solution. It shows how dangerous the worse ever president of the united state's groveling offerings to the Arab world, is to the future of Israel.

Historically of course, it's another matter. Jordan – an entirely artificial state – was once a part of the land of Israel.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 06:44 AM

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Zamini

You are an ignoramus.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 07:59 AM

Originally posted by LongPatrol
reply to [url=]post by So yes, Zionist's had a VERY big part in causing, and failing to prevent, the greatest slaughter of living things this Earth has ever seen.

You forget what happened to native americans but i guess you're not seeing many new cow boy movies from Hollywood and we are just getting 'Poor Jew' Stories which should not suprise too many people who have looked to see who the big names are in Hollywood.

Anyone would think the only people in the concentration camps were jews but the russians out numbered them by four to one, not forgetting many jews were Russian and hence the double count.

Germans were also starving towards the end of the war so if you was in change then who would you feed first.

NATO (Sorry the frogs and brits) are dropping thursands of bombs on Libya and they tell us that the civilian death toll is in the ten so thats what i think about these figures that are 70 years old.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:29 AM
reply to post by gravitational

What I understand is essentially that Klavan is mocking the idea that Israel should return to the June-1967 borders, however from my perception you took his one state solution seriously.

The worst ever president? Please his comments aren't anything new, Clinton and Reagan the biggest Israeli supporters said similiar things and Bush Senior went even further in pressuring Israel. Infact, the Obama statement was even more supportive of Israel as he reffered to Israel as a Jewish state rather than a Jewish land- which the other presidents did not. Any support he seems to give to the Palestinians is superficial and cosmetic, designed entirely only to win left-wing election votes. I'm highly critical of Obama, but I wouldn't say he's the worst: I'd say he is simply a continuation of a long list of horrible presidents.

Historically of course, it's another matter. Jordan – an entirely artificial state – was once a part of the land of Israel.

All states are artificial, infact the whole concept of statehood is artificial which means that the state of Israel is also artificial: Are you saying because thousands of years ago, Jordan was part of Eretz Israel, that it should become a part of the Jewish state? Good luck remaining democratic if that is your wish. Honestly the history argument is the most stupid I have ever heard and should have no merit in a serious discussion to the solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Alot of countries were part of other countries historically... Hey America was once part of the British Empire: I don't see you saying we should give that territory back to her Majesty. Hey Greece was once part of the Ottomon Empire, hey Egypt was once part of the Macedonian empire... I could go on forever.
edit on 1-7-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by SpeachM1litant

Sigh....All nationalism is political. A person who speaks polish, and identifies himself as a 'pole', is an ardent defender of polish independance.....From other 'slavs', from Germans etc....

How does this differ with Jews? Ok.. It is also a religious distinction. But unlike in the case of catholics, there is a homogenous connection between all Jews - because of the language they speak (Hebrew....also yiddish in europe, ladino in spain/portugal) the culture they have, and the religion they follow.

They cannot qualify for all those criteria - language, history, culture and religion - established as principles by the science of anthropology to identify a people, and yet still be regarded as not a people. It isnt fair.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:15 AM
reply to post by LongPatrol

Do you even know your history???

No concentration centers were setup until AFTER Arab governments suggested that Arabs living in the west bank and galilee flee Israel until after they win the war.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:04 PM
reply to post by SpeachM1litant

What exactly was poor about the founding of the Jewish state???

How many books have you read on this subject??

Heres a basic history.

Jews have always lived in Palestine, from as far back as the roman expulsion in the 2nd century CE. They lived mainly in large concentrations in Judea and Samaria (the so called westbanl - given that name, which has stuck, after Jordan occupied the area post '48) and the Galilee.. In Jerusalem, Hebron, Be'er Sheba, Safed and Tiberias.

In the late 1860s, due to Czarist persecutions, russian Jews began migrating to palestine and they started little farming communities.. They didnt 'intrude' or dispossess anyone by doing this. They came in legally, bought land legally, and worked that land legally.

In 1897, due to the continued and worsening persecutions of Jews in Russia and Poland, aswell as the anti-semitism in France, theodor Herzl decided to write "the Jewish state". In the early 20th century, "zionists" like Herzl (up until his death in 1904) Weizmann, and others were going around Europe, recieving audiences with major diplomats, aristocrats and financers, trying to create a political atmosphere in which a Jewish state could appear as a worthwhile investment. After a good 10 years of dormancy, the British, particularly David llyod George decided that with the war with Turkey, creating a Jewish state could be a politically feasible possibility. He contacted the zionists and they eventually worked out a project that became the 1917 Belfour Declaration. The belfour decalaration promised to create a Jewish state in Palestine, which then constituted all of Israel and the trans-Jordan. Because the British (deliberately) omitted the article "the", they were able to snip away 80% of the Palestinian mandate as a 'gift' to abdullah, a hashemite prince from the Hedjaz, for his help during WWI...This created the trans-Jordan. 80% of the mandate was given over to an Arab prince who wasnt even from the area. His brother, Feisel, was then given Iraq as a "gift"..... Cronism?? Of course not, right? Only Israel can be accused of foul.

Throughout the 20s and 30s Arabs instigated by Hah Amin Al-Husseini launched pograms and massacres on Jewish communities. In 1929, hundreds of Jews were killed, and MAIMED - poke eyes out, rape, etc (Yes...apparently arabs feel the need to dismember/desecrate the bodies of those they kill) in Hebron and Safed.. and through the 30s, particularly during the 1936-1939 Arab riots....... Not until the early 40s did the Jews finally say enough is enough, and began to defend themselves; during this time paramilitary groups like the Hagana, Palmach, Irgun and Lehi were formed.

It was ALWAYS the Arabs instigating. When the Jews came into palestine the British already removed by 1921 80% of the mandate from Jewish settlements. They then prohibitted the Jews from settling in Judea and Samaria and the Galiliee. Thus, the only areas that were settled by Jews in the pre-state Israel were the western coastal portions; ie Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa, Acre etc.... It was only these areas being settled by Jews, and during this time of settlement ALL lands were purchased legally by the Jewish National Fund from willing Arab Effendis. Remember. It was THEY who allowed the Jews a foothold. It was THEY who sold their lands; because they were more interested in money, then in protecting the interests of "Arabs" (anyone who knows anything about the history of Palestine knows that the Arabs who lived there were ALWAYS enslaved and exploited far worse by the effendi/nobles then they have been by the Israelis; hence why most Arab israelis polled today prefer living in a democratic Israel then they would in a fundamentalist Muslim Palestine..all they need do is look at how arabs live in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and they know what they would prefer)....

Jewish investment in the area was creating jobs....and these jobs were designed for Polish/Russian Jews who were sufferring the persecutions in Europe. Instead of these jobs being reserved for Jews, as was intended by the Zionists, the British allowed Arabs to take them. Whether there was collusion on the part between the 'non-zionist', aspect of the Jewish agency (comprising personalities like magnes, buber and was these jews who represented Jewish donors like Felix Warburg...who was a passionate anti-zionist who was pushing for a bi-nationalist political entity....where the Jews would again be a minority amidst fundamentalist muslim arabs) and the British, is unknown....but i wouldnt deny it.

During this period, Hundreds of thousands of Arab illegal immigrants from Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere poured into Jewish settled Palestine to cash in on the job opportunities being created by lucrative Jewish investment into the area. Because the agreement between the Jewish agency and the British rested on labor, if there were no jobs for Jews who wanted to immigrate to palestine to have, they couldnt come. The Arab illegal immigration thus filled up the labor quota, preventing further Jewish immigration while simultaneously bolstering the Arab population of Jewish settled Palestine.

fastforward to the 1940s..... The Jews are being massacred in Europe. Some zionist groups, particularly the revisionists, and the bergson group, were desperately trying to get the birtish to lift the white paper which then reduced Jewish immigration to a measly 10,000 persons a year. The British wouldnt budge. Infact, one cold argue - atleast from appearances, that the British were colluding with the Nazis in killing Jews. Even the Strupa, a ship with 700 Romanian Jewish children on its way to Palestine was forced to turn back at Haifa and remain docked at istanbul. After a few months of being docked there, the ship was torpedoed by an unknown party (either the british or russians) and all those souls were killed. The British did EVERYTHING in their power to prevent saving Jewish lives. To highlight their cruelty; even after the holocaust, when survivors were coming to Israel after the war, the British were sending them back; even going to the extent of rounding up all those holocaust survivors with rods and bayonets and forcing them back on the boat and sending them away.

Only in 1947, when the British were forced to leave the country, thanks to the Irgun, Lehi and Hagana, did the British defer to the issue of Palestine to the United Nations. The united Nations, the nations of the world voted 3-1 for the partition of Palestine to create one Jewish state, and one Arab state. Instead of the Arabs accepting this, as they should have, they ATTACKED the Jews.

So where... please show me, where did the Jews err? What injustice did they commit? From the sound of longpatrol, he must be a palestinian, cause for him to say something so lunatic and absurd as "jews have no connection to palestine", when the very name for 90% of its cities is of Hebrew origin, is ABSURD!! It is maniacal. It is the product of venemous arab propaganda.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by dontreally

I have visited the "resettlement" areas. I have seen bethlehem. I have seen Nablus. Animals live better in many countries than those people.

You know nothing, and as such, should say nothing.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by dontreally

Here is some "basic" history for your undeducated self...

The armies of Joshua and his spawn invade Palestine. Their argument....GOD GAVE IT TO THEM??????????

They murder every living thing within thier reach, with a special affinity for the de braining of Phillistine babies. They don't even let the cats live. Disgusting.

Circa 1940's. They repeat massacre after massacre on civillian populations under a british colonial mandate. Disgusting.

its obvious that you DONTREALLY know anything. I bet you hear that often, and with increasing hostillity.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 01:42 PM
reply to post by LongPatrol

The armies of Joshua and his spawn invade Palestine. Their argument....GOD GAVE IT TO THEM??????????

uh huh... You said earlier that the Jews never had a relationship to the land? Which is it?

They murder every living thing within thier reach, with a special affinity for the de braining of Phillistine babies. They don't even let the cats live. Disgusting.

Where on earth are you getting this from? You have a very serious anger problem. You can hardly write a post without a moderator having to delete it or edit it. The implication? Youre too emotional, and hence, unable to make rational judgements (emotions are irrational...the more emotion you exhibit, the more obvious your arguments are of being ill-formed/exaggerated etc. so far you havent said a thing that hasnt been an exaggeration)

I have visited the "resettlement" areas. I have seen bethlehem. I have seen Nablus. Animals live better in many countries than those people.

Who setup these camps? Thats right, the Arabs. Who told them to flee and escape the westbank/galilee before the Arab armies attacked? Thats right. Nasser and his cronies. Now whos being blamed for it?? the Israelis?!? That isnt right at all.

I'll quote Musa Alami, the noted Egyptian diplomat for you. "In the social sphere, the incompetence of the Arab governments has revealed itself in the matter of the refugees. ... It is shameful that the Arab governments should prevent the Arab refugees from working in their countries and shut the doors in their faces and imprison them in camps."

Circa 1940's. They repeat massacre after massacre on civillian populations under a british colonial mandate. Disgusting.

Again. Another hyper emotional gross exaggeration.

Who started killing whom first.


Jaffa Riots
1929 Hebron Massacre
1929 Safed Massacre
1938 Tiberias pogrom
1936-1939 Arab Riots

Now. The jews didnt kill a SINGLE Arab before these 5 precedants were set, of Arabs massacring Jews.

So, dont be surprised when they get bitten back. You dont attack someone over and over again, expecting your victim not to eventually respond with an attack of his own.

Its a dog eat dog world. ArabsMuslims of ALL PEOPLE on planet earth should know that.

They seem to have no problem starting things with hindus, kurds, Blacks in Sudan, Eastern Orthodox in Serbia, Armenian Christians, Copts, Christians living in Muslim lands...

Arabs/Muslims are a ferociously hostile people. This is why it is hilariously ironic that you cry tears now for the was these people who forced the irgun/lehi to respond as they did....

Nobody cries for those Jews killed by Arab mobs before 1940. There was not a single jewish response until 1946, after the Arabs already had 5 or 6 massacres against Jews under their belt.

edit on 1-7-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 01:47 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:14 PM

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by dontreally

I scrolled down to read the end of your post, as I don't have the time to read it all (I have work to do), however you posted at the bottom "what injustice have the Jews committed?". You are completely ignorant and arrogant in stating that the creation of Israel was not an injustice to the indeginous Palestinians of the land. It was... Period. I have learnt to live with the fact that it is an unfortunate injustice which was bound to happen.

Secound, the injustice of the illegal settelments on Palestinian land. Third, the numerous massacares that Israel committed and Israel let happen. Qibya, for example. Fourth, the occupation of the West Bank, Fifth the imprisonment of Gaza. The list goes on. The difference between me and you is that I recognize the injustice committed by Arabs and you deny the injustice committed by the Jews. What history books are you reading?

After a quick look through your history of the founding of Israel I notice you blatantly left out the terrorist murdering organization actions of groups such as the Stern Gang and Irgun and Haganah, infact not only did you leave out there terrorist actions, you actually painted them in a positive light. I'm starting to think your a racist. Remember the Stern Gang was responsible for killing UN negotiators. So it was not only the Arabs instigating violence.

In what world would you think the Arabs would ever accept a Jewish state: It is like going to New Jersey and making an Italian state. There was bound to be conflict and both sides had to deal with it. Have some realism please. Have you read the papers of Ze'ev Jabotinsky: He recognized that the Arabs would not accept a Jewish state untill the Jews showed their power and created an Iron wall, however he recognized that the Palestinian people would require a homeland and realised that this would be the core issue of the conflict. When Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and refuses to allow a Palestinian state to be created they are infact denying what their most famous Zionist is saying: Ze'ev Jabotinsky. Israel has showed it's supremacy amongst the Arabs and now as the regional power it is it's role to take the first steps in creating a just and lasting peace. Every since Benyamins election in 1996, Israel has done anything in it's power to stop the establishment of a Palestinian state thus stopping the establishment of a just and lasting peace. Benyamin essentially diminished the Oslo accords and the Oslo II agreement and almost entirely reversed the progress made by Rabin.

I suggest you pick up a book about contemprary Israeli history that is IMPARTIAL.
edit on 1-7-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by SpeachM1litant

After a quick look through your history of the founding of Israel I notice you blatantly left out the terrorist murdering organization actions of groups such as the Stern Gang and Irgun and Haganah, infact not only did you leave out there terrorist actions, you actually painted them in a positive light. I'm starting to think your a racist. Remember the Stern Gang was responsible for killing UN negotiators. So it was not only the Arabs instigating violence.

Ok. First, im neither ignorant of this subject, or arrogant. Whats actually arrogant is you saying you didnt read the majority of my post - which addresses the issue of the "ignorance" issue - and yet you still go ahead an call me arrogant.

When you get the time. Read the post.

As for the Lehi, Hagana, Palmach and Irgun. First of all. There were over 6 major massacres, between 1921 - with the Jaffa massacre, and 1939, with the Arab riots, that left hundreds of Jews killed. Ok? For close to 18 years, there wasnt one Jewish reprisal. Jews stood and begged the British for help when the arabs attacked them in Hebron in 1929, and Safed in the same year. No response for this brutal atrocity, and yet anyone with a brain and a sense of justice knows that you cant play nice with people who find it morally justifiable to kill, the way Arabs and Muslims do.

Not until 1946 did an organized Jewish defensive finally occur. And how many individual attacks were there?

Massacres in Palestine before 1948

You have 7 individual massacres against Jews before 1946. The Jews did NOTHING at all to the Arabs, aside from providing job opportunities and a better standard lof living for what were clearly ungreatful arabs. In this period, the infamous Haj Amin Al-Husseini, an ardent anti-semite and friend of Hitler (who lived with him at one point), after being made Grand Mufti of Jerusalem by the supposed 'friend of the Jews' herbert samuel (therebye investing this criminal with official powers) orchestrated each of these attacks against the Jews. It was the Grand Mufti who instigated the mobs with violent religious rhetoric against the Jews. Is the alliance between Haj Al husseni and Hitler not enough to show that this guy was a vile, evil person?

But since you want to stress the failings of the Underground jewish paramilitary groups.. Fine. But first, take it in perspective that the Arabs were the original hostile parties. You dont attack someone 6 times, killing hundreds of people, and mutilating their bodies (as Arabs are wont to do) without eventually coming to the understanding (as Sephardic Jews know so well...ask anyone of them, and they'll all tell you stories about what the parents/grandparents had to put up with) that Arab brutality is a common thing. Im sorry, but most stereotypes have truth to them. Chinese are often bad drivers. Indians are usually dirty. And Arabs - as even reported in ancient Jewish, Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic and Hindu writings (and even in some of their own history books) are known for their brutal methods. This is not a 'racist' statement. It is something they are known to do. Am i saying ALL of them are like this? No. but the Arab culture has fostered this mentality, Otherwise it wouldnt be such a staple, from their earliest crusades in the middleast, north African and Asia, to the common era, of their behavior. This can lead to no other inference then Islam being a religion with a high tolerance for blood and gore.

Anyways. You have the king David Hotel bombings which left 91 killed. 41 Arabs, 28 british and 17 Jews. This attack was aimed towards the British. It just so happened that many Arabs and Jews were killed aswell.

The real fighting begins in 1947. You have an Irgun attack on December 13, 1947, that left 16 Arabs killed.
Then you have a reprisal from the Arab legion on December 14, 1947 that left 13 Jews killed.
Then you have a Haganah offensive that left 10 Arabs dead on December 18, 1947
From December 24th-29th, there were 4 individual Arab attacks that left 20 Jews killed.
On December 29, 1947, the irgun threws a bomb - a politically motivated ie; strategic offensive that leaves 11 Arabs dead
On December 30, 1947, an Irgun bombing leaves 6 Arabs killed. After the attack workers at the refinery killed 39 Jews
January 1, 1948, Palmach launches an offensive against Arabs in Haifa that leaves 17-70 killed.
January 3, 1948, an Arab attack leaves 4 Jews killed
January 3, 1948 an Arab attack leaves 3 Jews killed
The Bombing of Arab National Committee headquarters on january 4, 1948 by Lehi leaves 14 Arabs dead
The Semiramis Hotel bombing on January 5, 1948 by Hagana leaves 20 Arabs dead
On January 5, 1948, 4 Arabs were killed after they attacked the Jewish community of Safed
The Jaffa Gate bombing in Jerusalem on January 7, 1948 left 15-20 Arabs killed
Between January 9th, 1948 and Febuary 15th, Arab attacks killed 103 Jews

Between the 15th of febuary of 1948 April 9th 1948, there were more attacks, none of which left more thena few killed in each attack.

Then of course there was De'ir Yassin massacre, which Jews never hear the end of. This left 100 Arabs dead.

Lets juxtapose this attack with what followed. 4 days later, Arab militants killed 78 Jews; all of them doctors, nurses and patients. Thats just 22 less then the Arabs killed

However, the largest massacre was the Kfar Zion massacre, which left 127-157 Jews Murdered.

My point with all these numbers? The Arabs were the first to instigate them with the random attacks between 1921 and 1939. Because both parties were vying for political control of the land of Palestine, Arabs of course not being satisfied with political control over 99% of thr middleast, also wanted that little tinie tiny strip of land west of the Jordan river. It was not enough for them that the British gave 80% of the then Palestinian Mandate. Nope. They wanted ALL of it; which is why the rejected the partition plan and launched a war on the Jews.

Im not racist. Im a judicious person who weighs facts properly. The Jews did some things of course that arent nice. But unfortunately, when youre competing with such a ruthless and bellicose enemy, you have no chouice BUT to adopt their cruel methods; its a case of fighting fire with fire. There is no other response. Its either you give the Arabs a taste of their own medicine, or you allow them to destroy you, as theyve done hundreds of times to others.
edit on 1-7-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:04 PM
reply to post by dontreally

You post retains blatant hypocrisy: You talk about fighting fire with fire. So it is ok for the Jews during the 1940's to adopt methods which the Arabs used but come crice the 2000's it is terrorism once the Palestinians employ the same tactics?

The fact is, that if Israel continues to marginalise the Palestinians then either you accept their terrorist actions as fighting fire with fire or you denounce all terrorist actions including those of the Jewish terrorist organizations which assasinated UN peace negotiators in order to fulfill biblical ambitions. Do you call kiling UN peace negotiators justified? Were the peace negotiators killing Jews?

You act as if the founding of the Jewish state was peacefull on the Jewish side even do Ze'ev Jabotinsky himself stated 'A coluntary agreement between us and the Arabs of Palestine is inconceivable now or in the foreseeable future". You discuss the fact that the Jews brought with them economic prosperity, hoever, the Arabs, did not accept this as the basis of joining a Jewish sate. If you are talking stereotypes then I don't have to tell you the common stereotype of the Jew: Stingy and financial oreinted. The Arabs cared little for the economic prosperity, they wished to maintain the territorial status quo of Arab hegemony in Palestine.

Do I have to recite the words of Ze'ev Jabotinsky to have you understand that the Jews well knew there founding was going to be violent "We cannot promise any rewards either to the Arabs of Palestine or to the Arabs outside Palestine. A voluntary agreement is unattainable. And so those who regard an accord with the Arabs as an indispensable condition of Zionism must admit to themselves today that the condition cannot be attained and hence that we must give up Zionism. We must either suspend our settlement efforts or continue them without paying atention to the mood of the natives. Settlement can thus debelop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an iron wall which they will be powerless to break down".

While people such as you and Golda Meir deny the existence of a Palestinian nationality Jabotinsky admitted they were there: I suggest you read The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs). Jabotinsky rationalises and in some sense justifies the Arab rejection of Zionism. He refers to him and the Arabs having a "polite indifference" while also rejecting the ideo of removing the Arabs from all of Palestine. The fact is that the Zionists wanted to turn Palestine into a country with a Jewish majority and the Palestinian Arabs would never accept that, just as American do not want there country to have say a Mexican majority.

Jabotinsky states: "Every indigenous people, will resist alein settlers as long as they see any hope of riding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement. This is how the Arabs will behave and go on behaving so long as they possess a gleam of hope that they can prevent "Paletsine" from becoming the Land of Israel". Now that the Arabs in 2011 have lost all hope of removing Israel, Israel should adhere to international law and remove itself to the pre-June 1967 borders. Jabotinsky himself advocated an agreement with the Palestinians "I do not mean to assert that no agreement whatever is possible with the Arabs of the Land of Israel. But a voluntary agreement is just not psobbile. As long as the Arabs reserve a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rud of us".

Ben Gourin himself did not accept the partition plan as permanent: He stated "I am certain, we will be able to settle in all the other parts of the country, whether through agreement and mutual understanding with our Arab neighbours or in another way" and "Erect a Jewish State at once, even if it is not in the whole land. The rest will come in the course of time. It must come". Another way meant force just in case you didn't realise.

Infact Ben Gouring did not indicate the borders of the new Jewish state in its declaration of independence, in order to leave possible the expansion of Israel beyond the UN borders. Don't act as if Israel wanted to adhere to the UN partition plan and the Arabs did not.

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 10:48 PM
reply to post by SpeachM1litant

You post retains blatant hypocrisy: You talk about fighting fire with fire. So it is ok for the Jews during the 1940's to adopt methods which the Arabs used but come crice the 2000's it is terrorism once the Palestinians employ the same tactics?

When trying to get at the 'root' of a subject, we have to go to the origins. This is the only way for us to make a moral decision on who is ultimately right.

The heart of the subject is this.

The Arabs currently have 21 states (members of the Arab league) from Iraq, to Mali, the Arab language (an important one...since not all peoples of the middleast are "arabs". Infact, only people from the Arabian peninsula are Arabs. Those in Iraq, Lebanon, and Egypt and the rest of North Africa werent originally Arabs, but Berbers, Kurds, Babylonians, and Assyrians. They spoke Berb in North Africa. ) Arab culture, and Muslim history - which is really the triumph of Arab tribes over the rest of the now Islamic world - dominates. This however doesnt mean that there arent Berbers, or Kurds, or Copts - whose culture and uniqueness as a separate people has been supressed - doesnt exist.

There are over 35 million stateless Kurds today - with their own language and separate identity (they were known as hurrians in the past. Saladin for instance was a Kurd) and infact were promised a state by the British before WWI, only to be betrayed when they created the state of Iraq - given to the brother of the Hashemite prince and king of Jordan, Abdullah. The Kurds remain stateless and persecuted FAR worse (and there are many kurdish websites you can go to for proof) and far longer then the Palestinian Arabs are.

And of course there were about 1 million Jews living in "Arab" lands, from the major community in Baghdad, to Palestinian communities in Jerusalem, in Cairo, in Algeria, in Tunisia, Libya and Morocco. These Jews shared the same Sephardic culture as the rest of them. Why dont they get their own state? And why not in the land of Israels, whose towns and cities have names (ie; Arab names) of biblical Hebrew Origin? That is the land of their birth, where their culture was formed, and their history and source lies.

THIS is the heart of the subject. Justice for the Jews, Kurds and Berbers, to exist as a people, in dignity, with self determination. Just as the poles have their own state, and arent oppressed by Germans. Just as the portuguese exist in a different state to the Spanish. This doesnt make the world bad. It exists in many countries, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with national distinctions, with diversity, in language, culture, and establishing a state in which one can be in control of ones own unique destiny.

Im all for a "United Nations", type idea. I have no problem with an international government. However, i do have a problem with people ignoring the rights of others. Arabs CREATED the Palestinian problem. This is basic knowledge. THEY crammed these people who they were fully capable, and indeed morally responsible to take care of, into regugee campms, for the sake of creating the perception of Israeli cruelty. And the pathetic thing is it works quite well.

If anyone focused on this larger perspective, it would be clear as daylight how justified the Jews are in demanding the entire West Bank AND Gaza. The original mandate gave the entire moderns states of Jordan/Israel to the Jews. 80% was taken away from it, to create yet another Arab state, this time a present to an Arab aristocrat who lived hundreds of miles away in Hedjaz. And now you want MORE?? When does it end? Why dont people like you take Arab threats seriously? They didnt want a Jewish state in 1948, and they still dont want one now - which is why neither Fatah nor Hamas care to acknowledge a "jewish state", which suggests that they will seek more after they are given a state. They will CONTINUE reaching. They will also have incredible strategic capabilities since Israels economic heartland, the Tel-Aviv/Haifa region will be narrowed to 9 km stretch of land. And Jews are supposed to "Trust" that the Arabs wont take advantage of this? Judea and Samaria is mountainous land. This 9 km stretch of land is below it. That makes it quite easy for them to launch missiles into Israel, hitting Jews like sitting ducks.

There is no room for a 2 state solution. The only solution, and just solution, would be for Jordan to take in the Palestinians that their state was designed to shelter.
edit on 1-7-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:06 PM

Don't act as if Israel wanted to adhere to the UN partition plan and the Arabs did not.

Who launched an attack on whom?

The Arab nations.

As for the statements made by Jabotinsky and Ben Gurion which seem to indicate that the Jews were planning on expanding their borders.... How? Why would Jews launch an offensive on the Arabs? That was the LAST thing that they needed.

In anycase, it wasnt those remarks by these two Jews which caused Arabs to oppose Zionism ie; a Jewish state. They did not want a Jewish state, in the midst of an Arab federation of nations. And the clerics did not want Judaism, to have any authority in the midst of Dar al Islam, not to mention their desire to convert the entire world to the religion of Islam (a stated goal of Islam/Kuran)...

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by dontreally

Initially you justify the Jewish occupation of the West Bank, by stating that the Kurds have suffered under the Arabs for years. This is a completely irrelevant point.

The Arabs currently have 21 states and the Jews 1. What is your point in highlighting this factor? Does the fact that the Middle East is a majority Arab area, mean that the occupation of the West Bank is legal.

80% of the land of Israel was never given to the Arabs. The Jews would have 52% under the partition plan and the Arabs/Palestinians 48% under the partition plan. The current borders recognized under international law give Israel 79% and and the arabs 21% of Palestine. The Arabs never accepted a Jewish state in 1948 and I have highlighted why. Would you accept a Italian state made of New Jersey?

It is evident you are not all for a United Nations type deal, as you believe Israel should not be bound by international law. No one is ignoring the rights of the Jews. Under International law, the Jewish state would recieve 79% of Palestine. The Palestinian Refugee problem was not created by the Arabs as you say, the Israeli forced exodus of the Palestinians is the root cause. If I kick you out of your home, it is not the fault of your neighbour for not taking you into his home, but my fault for kicking you out. Simple. The Jordanian economy was never and would never be able to incoporate the Palestinians unless this included incoporating the terrotories of the West Bank. I assure you this as a student of economics: I suggest you research or just logically look at the economic complexeties of accepting refugee's. Do you know what serious implications accepting over 1,000,000 refugee's would have on the Jordanian economy? This section of your statement is both ignorant and arrogant. I adhere to rationality in the economic, political and legal spheres. I can tell you accepting even 100,000 refugee's is neither logical or reasonable from an economic perspective.

If anyone focused on this larger perspective, it would be clear as daylight how justified the Jews are in demanding the entire West Bank AND Gaza. The original mandate gave the entire moderns states of Jordan/Israel to the Jews.

Nope there is no justification, just because the original proposal or Eretz Israel entitled the Jews to Israel and Trans-Jordan. None what-so-ever. This proposal(note the word proposal) evidently collapsed as it was based on ideology not rationality. It has no bidning affects on international law. The only way Israel can incoporate the West Bank and Gaza is if it reigns as a military dictatorship over the Arabs of the land, otherwise it would not be a Jewish state.

Even more so, have you ever considered the Palestinians don't want to join Jordan and that they want their own state?

If you have taken care in reading the works of Ze'ev Jabotinsky you would realise that while resistance to the Jewish state will always exist, Israel has itself established an Iron Wall and shown it's military superiority and its regional power status to all the Arabs. They no it is not going anywhere. The fact is that IDF officers even advised Benyamin Netanyahu, that while some small strategic areas of land may be retained, the West Bank is not necassary for security purposes whatsover, infact occupying this regions serves the opposite purpse. It radicalises fundementalists and spreads the IDF out thining its defensive lines. Aditionally the settlements serve no security purposes infact it once again serves the opposite: So don't try justify the military occupation through those means and don't pretend to support the UN when you believe Israel should be exempt from adhering to international law and the UN charter.

Your entire argument is in no sense logically based, infact it is just ideology wrapped in a few irrelevant facts, propagandised facts and a miniscule amount of logic. Tell me what secuirty purpose do the settlements serve?
edit on 1-7-2011 by SpeachM1litant because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in