One of the most destructive raids of the intifada, leaving hundreds of Palestinians homeless...

Originally posted by CoLD aNGeR
Well let�s see, in the previous posts, u clearly admit, that i am talking about history and that i am not inventing nothing here:

Let�s not get ahead of ourselves. You quoted some history.

Where you and I disagree is the interpretation of the history. You put a sinister spin on minutia; you quote historical facts and expect me to see evil in them. You characterize Zionism as �land stealing� while pointing me to references that show just the opposite.

Originally posted by CoLD aNGeR
Herzl proposed a practical program for collecting funds from Jews around the world by a company to be owned by stockholders, which would work toward the practical realization of this goal. (This organization, when it was eventually formed, was called the Zionist Organization.) He saw the future state as a model social state, basing his ideas on the European model of the time, of a modern enlightened society. It would be neutral and peace-seeking, and of a secular nature.

This program that you speak of was to buy land. Not steal, buy.

Originally posted by CoLD aNGeR
The land of Palestine was inhabited by Palestinian Arabs. In 1850 these consisted of approximately 400,000 Muslims, 75,000 Christians, and 25,000 Jews. For centuries these groups had lived in harmony: 80 percent Muslim, 15 percent Christian, 5 percent Jewish.

Uh-huh. True (sort of) and often quoted statistics, but they don�t paint a complete picture.

In the mid 19th century what was called �Palestine� was pretty vague, but covered a region that would include modern Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, all of Jordan, parts of southern Syria, Lebanon and even a bit of Egypt. Today the word �Palestine� can refer to just the West Bank and Gaza Strip or (depending on who�s saying it) those areas plus Israel. The Christian and Jewish populations were concentrated, the Christians mostly in the North in what is now Lebanon, and the Jews mostly in Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, Tiberius and a few other communities in what is now the West Bank.

These population statistics are usually quoted to show how much a minority the Jewish population was, but nobody disputes that. What they also show is how sparse the population was in Palestine. A half-million people are not much for that region. Today it holds about 20 million, and it�s still sparsely populated.

Palestine of the 19th century had been in decline for a very long time. The region had been neglected by the Ottomans, and what government they had was ineffectual and corrupt. The average life expectancy was less than 20 years, due mostly to the poverty of the population and the lack of health care. The population that was there was mostly nomadic Bedouins and rural farmers, working for absentee land-owners in a feudal-type system. The land itself was mostly owned by foreigners, some of it worked by locals, much of it dormant.

The Zionists of the 19th and early 20th century purchased land and built communities. Far from displacing anyone, they provided jobs and economic opportunities. They drained swamps (the source of much disease) and built roads, schools and hospitals. It�s no coincidence that when new Arabic communities were built, they were built near Jewish settlements.

The idea that Muslims, Jews and Christians all lived together in peace in Palestine is a myth. If you define �peace� as simply not killing each other, then it�s true, but the actual truth is that non-Muslims were second-class citizens. Legal discriminations included not being allowed to give testimony in court, being forbidden to hold government offices, and not being protected under Islamic law. In day to day life, non-Muslims were abused and discriminated against routinely. There was a reason why people of different religions formed separate communities.

When you say things such as �There were only 550 Zionists� or �Most Orthodox Jews were anti-Zionist� all I can say is Duh! Every new idea is a minority opinion before it catches on. In an era where the telegraph was still new and messages still traveled by boat, this idea caught on pretty fast.

On to other points:

When I criticize Electronic Intifada as a source, it�s because they have a history of misrepresenting pictures and playing fast & loose with the facts. You are correct in saying Haaretz is an Israeli newspaper, however it�s editorial slant is liberal and is very critical of the Sharon government.

The Palestinian-Arabs get plenty of money from outside countries. Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt and formerly Iraq are all heavy contributors to the Palestinian-Arab cause.

You can complain that the Palestinian-Arabs are outmatched in equipment, but that certainly wasn�t true back in �47 or �67. That they are in the situation they are in today is entirely due to their refusal to take any opportunity for peace offered in the last 55 years.

Also, I have to point out that evenly matched opponents is normally a recipe for more bloodshed, not less.

"You can complain that the Palestinian-Arabs are outmatched in equipment, but that certainly wasn�t true back in �47 or �67. That they are in the situation they are in today is entirely due to their refusal to take any opportunity for peace offered in the last 55 years."

This is so often repeated, and is a lie. They have NOT refused to take any opportunity for peace in 55 years.

They have been offered almost exclusively crappy deals. Until they get a Right of Return, they're not going to accept, and knowing this, Israel doesn't offer it.


jakomo

No, they don't offer it because it's suicide. Would you invite 4 million potential enemy combatants into your borders? Would you purposly set up the circumstances for another Rwanda-type genocide?

Do I believe that every single Palestinian alive wants to just kill Jews?

Nope, but maybe I'm not reading the same desperate pro-Zionist propaganda as you are.

And it's THEIR fault that Israel won't offer the Right Of Return? Because all Palestinians are murderous bastards? Seems a little thin, logically.


j

Originally posted by Jakomo
Do I believe that every single Palestinian alive wants to just kill Jews?

Nope, but maybe I'm not reading the same desperate pro-Zionist propaganda as you are.

And it's THEIR fault that Israel won't offer the Right Of Return? Because all Palestinians are murderous bastards? Seems a little thin, logically.

I don�t believe that every Palestinian-Arab wants to just kill Jews, but there are enough of them to make a blanket right of return an insane idea, a recipe for another Rwanda-type genocide. It�s common sense that when your goal is peace, a good first step is to separate the combatants, not thrust them even closer together.

In the long term, compensation for people who have lost property should be discussed, but the larger issues of peace and security need to be dealt with first.

I'd love to hear you explain to me, Mycroft, how the return of Palestinians to Palestine would bring about a "Rwandan style genocide". Kudos for your attempt at scaremongering, but let's take a closer look.

Isn't Israel the 5th most powerful military in the world? Doesn't Palestine have NO standing Army? Or Navy? Or Air Force?

So how exactly would the RIGHTFUL return of 4 million Palestinians to their OWN country be seen as a recipe for genocide? Can't Israel still continue to indiscriminately bomb refugee camps even if Palestine is a sovereign state?

Please explain.


jakomo

Originally posted by Jakomo
So how exactly would the RIGHTFUL return of 4 million Palestinians to their OWN country be seen as a recipe for genocide? Can't Israel still continue to indiscriminately bomb refugee camps even if Palestine is a sovereign state?

Is English your first language?

When I say Rwanda-type genocide, I�m not saying it would be an Arab against Jew genocide. The way I see it, it could go either way, and both options are just as bad.

Having a big military isn�t a big help when you have populations mixed together. If you have a riot or house to house fighting, who you gonna bomb?

As I said, compensation should eventually be discussed, but peace and security need to be addressed first.

How can Israel destroy/dismantle the terrorist groups with a policy that it's own army chief says "helps the terrorist groups". This makes no sense unless you conclude that Sharon and his zionist buddies aren't looking for a peaceful solution to the situation. The way to stop the terrorists is to destroy all support for them, not by attempting to pound them into submission.

No-one will deny that Lieutenant-General Moshe Ya'alon is in a better position than any here to comment on the situation, here is what he said:

www.guardian.co.uk...

"Our strategy helps the terrorists - army chief warns Sharon

Fierce rebuke exposes rift between military and government

Israel's army chief has exposed deep divisions between the military and Ariel Sharon by branding the government's hardline treatment of Palestinian civilians counter-productive and saying that the policy intensifies hatred and strengthens the "terror organisations".
Lieutenant-General Moshe Ya'alon also told Israeli journalists in an off-the-record briefing that the army was opposed to the route of the "security fence" through the West Bank. The government also contributed to the fall of the former Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, by offering only "stingy" support for his attempts to end the conflict, he said.

"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest," Gen Ya'alon said. "It increases hatred for Israel and strengthens the terror organisations." "

He must be an anti-Semite.

Originally posted by Jakomo
He must be an anti-Semite.