The Israeli Police State

spyguy

_outlaw wrote:

nice website.

even better material. this is what I mean about you. anytime something gets posted that is against arabs you immediately dismiss it.

_outlaw wrote:

I'll wait until you actually discuss the issues. unless, of course, I'm asking too much of you... you know, to discuss the israel-palestine conflict in an israel-palestine thread.

sure what do you want to discuss? Israel needs to stop expanding settlements and hamas needs to renounce violence and recognize Israel.

this comes down to the 1967 borders. there needs to be a compromise instead of hamas' charter to destroy Israel and Israels insistence to continue building in disputed land.

fuck

spyguy wrote:

sure what do you want to discuss? Israel needs to stop expanding settlements and hamas needs to renounce violence and recognize Israel.

this comes down to the 1967 borders. there needs to be a compromise instead of hamas' charter to destroy Israel and Israels insistence to continue building in disputed land.

Hamas already said they are willing to talk once Israel goes back to the '67 borders. And yet, Israel refuses to do so.

And another thing I don't appreciate - why do people always say that Hamas has to renounce violence, but never talk about Israel renouncing violence as well?

spyguy

_outlaw wrote:

Hamas already said they are willing to talk once Israel goes back to the '67 borders. And yet, Israel refuses to do so.

And another thing I don't appreciate - why do people always say that Hamas has to renounce violence, but never talk about Israel renouncing violence as well?

I didnt say hamas wouldnt talk to them, I said recognize them......you are absolutely right both should renounce violence. but Israel doesnt have a stated charter calling for the destruction of Palestine. secondly, the 1967 borders will probably never happen again. compromises need to be made on both sides for there to be peace. sadly, Hamas says peace will not happen unless those borders happen.

fuck

spyguy wrote:

I didnt say hamas wouldnt talk to them, I said recognize them......

uhh, recognizing them can come after they TALK.

but Israel doesnt have a stated charter calling for the destruction of Palestine.

according to Israel, there is no Palestine. and I love how people just keep talking about how Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Look, that's a cute argument and all, but have you guys been fucking sleeping or something? Israel is the one who has been doing the destruction. forget about charters and shit, and just look at facts.

secondly, the 1967 borders will probably never happen again. compromises need to be made on both sides for there to be peace.

the 67 borders ARE a compromise. they are a compromise that the international community agrees on (all except Israel and the U.S.).

sadly, Hamas says peace will not happen unless those borders happen.

it is Israel who must come forward for peace.

spyguy

_outlaw wrote:

uhh, recognizing them can come after they TALK.

according to Israel, there is no Palestine. and I love how people just keep talking about how Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Look, that's a cute argument and all, but have you guys been fucking sleeping or something? Israel is the one who has been doing the destruction. forget about charters and shit, and just look at facts.

the 67 borders ARE a compromise. they are a compromise that the international community agrees on (all except Israel and the U.S.).

it is Israel who must come forward for peace.

I'm not going to anally break down your every sentence here, but you are completely failing to see both sides. all this crap you typed sounds nice. I dont necessarily disagree with it. but you say Israel needs to step forward with peace..ok....so does hamas. and yes Israel has destroyed parts of palastine..but the fact remains that Hamas' stated goal is the destruction of Israel. you are just so blinded with rage and hate you think anyone who speaks of Israel in an unhateful way is automatically a huge supporter of them.

rebornFixer

spyguy wrote:

I'm not going to anally break down your every sentence here, but you are completely failing to see both sides. all this crap you typed sounds nice. I dont necessarily disagree with it. but you say Israel needs to step forward with peace..ok....so does hamas. and yes Israel has destroyed parts of palastine..but the fact remains that Hamas' stated goal is the destruction of Israel. you are just so blinded with rage and hate you think anyone who speaks of Israel in an unhateful way is automatically a huge supporter of them.

I love how even HAMAS admits that one of its goals is to destroy Israel, but there's people on here who think its crazy to argue such.

rebornFixer

Leader of Hamas: "We condone attacks on civilian targets, because Israel is a militarized society".

_outlaw: "No, you don't, remember? You're just misunderstood, a victim of oppression. Say it with with me now ..."

Leader of Hamas: "But, we hate the Zionists. We DO want to kill them, and who cares if they wear a uniform or not?"

_outlaw: "Nice try, you're doin' good ... Let's try again, K? You are NOT a terrorist. You're just reacting to the horrible, awful Zionist attacks on your way of life. You're a good guy ... If people in the West don't get you, that's because their racists and they love the dirty, dirty Je ... I mean, Zionists!"

Leader of Hamas: "But ... I don't feel that oppressed. My people are more economically well off than, say, the average Lebanese or Jordanian ... Really, I just want to get the damn Jews out of this desert."

_outlaw: "Hmmm ... We have work ahead of us, young Jedi."

fuck

spyguy wrote:

I'm not going to anally break down your every sentence here, but you are completely failing to see both sides. all this crap you typed sounds nice. I dont necessarily disagree with it. but you say Israel needs to step forward with peace..ok....so does hamas. and yes Israel has destroyed parts of palastine..but the fact remains that Hamas' stated goal is the destruction of Israel. you are just so blinded with rage and hate you think anyone who speaks of Israel in an unhateful way is automatically a huge supporter of them.

I completely fail to see both sides, but you won't point to where or what I said that shows this. You simply just criticize arguments and try to show that people here are biased, and therefore wrong, but you won't ever supply any information, any proof, or anything.

You argue about the goal of Hamas, fine, I'll bite. The goal of Hamas is Israel's destruction in its current state. They do NOT want to push every Jew into the sea. They want the destruction of the occupation and oppression. You will probably respond with "you're wrong, you're blind" whatever, but answer this: IF Hamas wanted to push every Jew into the sea and bomb every Israeli alive, WHY would they say that once Israel moves back to the '67 borders, they'll talk to them??

any other insult by you is really you just trying to score some points and sidetracking the discussion.

fuck

reborncareerist wrote:

Leader of Hamas: "We condone attacks on civilian targets, because Israel is a militarized society".

_outlaw: "No, you don't, remember? You're just misunderstood, a victim of oppression. Say it with with me now ..."

Leader of Hamas: "But, we hate the Zionists. We DO want to kill them, and who cares if they wear a uniform or not?"

_outlaw: "Nice try, you're doin' good ... Let's try again, K? You are NOT a terrorist. You're just reacting to the horrible, awful Zionist attacks on your way of life. You're a good guy ... If people in the West don't get you, that's because their racists and they love the dirty, dirty Je ... I mean, Zionists!"

Leader of Hamas: "But ... I don't feel that oppressed. My people are more economically well off than, say, the average Lebanese or Jordanian ... Really, I just want to get the damn Jews out of this desert."

_outlaw: "Hmmm ... We have work ahead of us, young Jedi."

I'd appreciate you not to use my name with fake quotes, but I must say the part that says "My people are more economically well off than, say, the average Lebanese or Jordanian" shows the ignorance that it took to write such a thing.

rebornFixer

_outlaw wrote:

I'd appreciate you not to use my name with fake quotes, but I must say the part that says "My people are more economically well off than, say, the average Lebanese or Jordanian" shows the ignorance that it took to write such a thing.

It was a joke. Obviously no one things that's really you.

fuck

reborncareerist wrote:

It was a joke. Obviously no one things that's really you.

In that case, I hope you quoting Salman Rushdie is also a joke.

rebornFixer

And if one more of you fuckers calls me ignorant ... I'll do nothing, because this is the internet.


Seriously, though. I am no more ignorant than you are.

fuck

reborncareerist wrote:

And if one more of you fuckers calls me ignorant ... I'll do nothing, because this is the internet.


Seriously, though. I am no more ignorant than you are.

fair enough, but the comment was an ignorant one. I'd post links and statistics and stuff, but you'd probably just ignore them anyway.

spyguy

reborncareerist wrote:

It was a joke. Obviously no one things that's really you.

I did

rebornFixer

_outlaw wrote:

fair enough, but the comment was an ignorant one. I'd post links and statistics and stuff, but you'd probably just ignore them anyway.

Maybe I should threaten to post a link everytime you make an ignorant comment ... What's the bandwith of this site again?

Anyhow ... We've done the dance, nothing changes. You'll believe want to want to believe about Hamas while dodging's peoples' questions, and the world will keep turning.

fuck

reborncareerist wrote:

Maybe I should threaten to post a link everytime you make an ignorant comment ... What's the bandwith of this site again?

Anyhow ... We've done the dance, nothing changes. You'll believe want to want to believe about Hamas while dodging's peoples' questions, and the world will keep turning.

this entire post is simply not true. if you'd like to point to where I made ignorant comments in this thread, go ahead. also, I don't dodge people's questions. if it's relevant, I'll answer. if he wanted to PM me, he could have. he didn't, which means he was never interested in my answer.

rebornFixer

_outlaw wrote:

this entire post is simply not true. if you'd like to point to where I made ignorant comments in this thread, go ahead. also, I don't dodge people's questions. if it's relevant, I'll answer. if he wanted to PM me, he could have. he didn't, which means he was never interested in my answer.

I was more referring to the comments we made about Hamas, but OK, that too.
And no, my goal is not to go on some sort of ignorance crusade. For the record, I've never thought you to be an idiot. But your statements about Hamas are misinformed. Their own charter (I think that's the term they use) contradicts your (seeming) view that Hamas is nothing but an innocent victim.

fuck

reborncareerist wrote:

I was more referring to the comments we made about Hamas, but OK, that too.

I ignored comments? please, show me where.

But your statements about Hamas are misinformed. Their own charter (I think that's the term they use) contradicts your (seeming) view that Hamas is nothing but an innocent victim.

how are my comments misinformed? did Hamas not say they would talk to Israel once they withdrew to the '67 borders?

You guys' whole idea of 'recognition' of Israel is quite ambiguous, as well.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0311-26.htm

'First, the formal diplomatic language of "recognition" is traditionally used by one state with respect to another state. It is literally meaningless for a non-state to "recognize" a state. Moreover, in diplomacy, such recognition is supposed to be mutual. In order to earn its own recognition, Israel would have to simultaneously recognize the state of Palestine. This it steadfastly refuses to do (and for some reason, there are no high-minded newspaper editorials demanding that it do so).

Second, which Israel, precisely, are the Palestinians being asked to "recognize?" Israel has stubbornly refused to declare its own borders. So, territorially speaking, "Israel" is an open-ended concept. Are the Palestinians to recognize the Israel that ends at the lines proposed by the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan? Or the one that extends to the 1949 Armistice Line (the de facto border that resulted from the 1948 war)? Or does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 years — and which maps in its school textbooks show as part of "Israel"?

For that matter, why should the Palestinians recognize an Israel that refuses to accept international law, submit to U.N. resolutions or readmit the Palestinians wrongfully expelled from their homes in 1948 and barred from returning ever since?

If none of these questions are easy to answer, why are such demands being made of the Palestinians? And why is nothing demanded of Israel in turn?'

timsinclair

Hi Outlaw.
I literally dont have the time to respond to every point in your many walls of text and links, so I will have to make a few general points regarding where I think your misunderstandings lie. You said that you are interested in facts and history but you did not seem to know that mandatory Palestine included modern day Jordan. This is a vital fact as it shows that the Arabs of Palestine were VERY fairly treated. The mandate called for the ‘close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.’ and was restricted to the area west of the Jordan when Jordan was given statehood, however this still included both the west bank and Gaza as the Jewish area of the mandate. This has never been revoked, certainly not by resolution 242. For a simple presentation of the maps over the various periods:

http://www.cfi-interactive.co.uk/flash/maps.html

The British mandate expired on May 15th 1948. The previous night Ben Gurion had read out the scroll of Independence, saying ‘By virtue of our National and intrinsic right…..and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, we hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, which shall be known as the State of Israel.’ The first Egyptian air raids began the same night, and as the last British troops left the next day, the armies of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Transjordan invaded. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League announced that: ‘This will be a war of extermination, and a momentous massacre’ Despite being vastly outnumbered in weapons and man-power, by the end of 1948 the Jews had succeeded in defending their new State. However King Abdullah’s Arab Legion had taken the Old City of Jerusalem and the territory now known as the West Bank, and the Egyptians had taken the Gaza strip, both of which were illegal occupations, not recognised by the UN.

Although many Arabs chose to remain in Jewish territory, and became Israeli citizens, approximately 656,000 Arabs fled into the areas occupied by Egypt and Jordan, as well as the Arab States. The reasons for this exodus are among the most hotly contested areas in Middle Eastern history. Pro-Palestinian commentators hold that the flight of the Arabs was a result of ‘Israeli terror’ and ‘direct expulsion.’ Whilst supporters of Israel contest that they fled due to instructions from the Arab leaders via radio broadcasts. It is likely that both of these factors contributed to the flight of the Palestinian Arabs, as did the [false] reports of a massacre at Deir Yassin, but it is difficult to prove which was the primary cause. Benny Morris, who is widely regarded as the leading authority on the refugees, concludes that ‘the Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design.’ In addition, it must also be remembered that the war produced a similar number of Jewish refugees, who fled, or were forcibly expelled from the Islamic world, a total of 567,654 from 1948 to 1967.

For a visual presentation on the movement of refugees:


http://www.cfi-interactive.co.uk/cgibin/history.html

In seeking to paint a picture of Israel as the agressor, you ignore the unwillingness of the Arabs to make peace with Israel. Although the Egyptians signed peace accords with Israel in 1979 in exchange for the Sinai, the Arab States issued the ‘3 No’s of Khartoum’ (No recognition, No negotiation, No peace) in 1967, and most remain in a state of war with the Jewish State. Regarding the Barak-Arafat affair at camp david, virtually everyone who had anything to do with it places the blame entirely on Arafat for turning down Barak's offer. In fact, even the Saudi prince Bandar was furious with Arafat, calling his rejection a 'crime'. Israel was willing to make huge sacrifices to give the Palestinians a State but this cannot happen without both sides being willing. This is why resolution 242 calls on both sides, not Israeli unilateral withdrawal:

‘Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force’

I do not need to quote the Hamas and PLO charters, we all know that both call for Israel's complete destruction. Your suggestion that they only refer to the west bank and Gaza is ridiculous. There will not be peace unless the Arabs give up there dream of destroying the hated 'Zionist Entity.

Lastly regarding my comments about the Jewish need to survive in the face of persecution. You said that this was not the case because the Zionist movement began before the holocaust. This clearly demonstrates your complete lack of knowledge of Jewish history. The holocaust was the climax of a long history of pogroms, ghettoiation, and massacres. The first major movement of jews to Israel was in 1881 as a direct response to persecution, the Zionist movement itself was born of the need to survive in the face of widespread unrelenting antisemitism.

Peace.

fuck

timsinclair wrote:

I literally dont have the time to respond to every point in your many walls of text and links, so I will have to make a few general points regarding where I think your misunderstandings lie.

mandatory Palestine included modern day Jordan. This is a vital fact as it shows that the Arabs of Palestine were VERY fairly treated.

The first sentence is a lie. Secondly, how is it that the 'Arabs' were treated fairly?

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/298
'The Jordan-is-Palestine argument rests on four main premises: that Palestine historically included Jordan; that the British-governed Mandate of Palestine included the entire territory of today's Israel and Jordan; that the two regions are geographically indistinguishable; and that Palestinian and Jordanian leaders themselves believe Jordan and Palestine identical. The trouble is, neither the historical record nor the map unambiguously supports any of these propositions. Rather, they are based on a selective knowledge of history and geography, a narrow and eccentric reading of the British Mandate, and a distortion of inter-Arab political dynamics...

the historical record shows that the Palestine did not always include the east bank, and that the Jordan River has often served as a military and political division. The history of the area, ancient, medieval, and modern, does not entitle one to assert, as do advocates of Jordan-is-Palestine, that "the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was understood as British recognition of a Jewish National Homeland in all of historic Palestine"-meaning today's Jordan and Israel. The territory promised by the Balfour Declaration can justifiably be interpreted as ending at the Jordan River or as extending further.'

http://www.cfi-interactive.co.uk/flash/maps.html

hahahaha, you think the 'Christian Friends of Israel' is a credible source?!

The British mandate expired on May 15th 1948. The previous night Ben Gurion had read out the scroll of Independence, saying ‘By virtue of our National and intrinsic right…..and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, we hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, which shall be known as the State of Israel.’ The first Egyptian air raids began the same night, and as the last British troops left the next day, the armies of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Transjordan invaded. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League announced that: ‘This will be a war of extermination, and a momentous massacre’ However King Abdullah’s Arab Legion had taken the Old City of Jerusalem and the territory now known as the West Bank, and the Egyptians had taken the Gaza strip, both of which were illegal occupations, not recognised by the UN.

'The truth is that by May 1948 Zionist forces had already invaded and occupied large parts of the land which had been allocated to the Palestinians by the UN Partition Plan.

..it is not true that the Arabs "invaded Israel" in 1948. First, Israel did not exist at the time of the alleged invasion as an established state with recognised bounderies. When the Zionist leaders established Israel on 15 May 1948 they purposely declined to declare the bounderies of the new state in order to allow for future expansion.

Secondly, the only territory to which the new state of Israel had even a remote claim was that alloted to the Jewish state by the UN Partition Plan. But the Zionists had already attacked areas that were alloted to the Palestinian Arab state.

Thirdly, those areas which the Arab states purportedly "invaded" were, in fact, exclusively areas alloted to the Palestinian Arab state proposed by the UN Partition Plan. The so-called Arab invasion was a defensive attempt to hold on to the areas alloted by the Partition Plan for the Palestinian state.

Finally, the commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, was under orders not to enter the areas alloted to the Jewish state (Sir John Bagot Glubb, "The Battle for Jerusalem", Middle East International, May 1973).'

Despite being vastly outnumbered in weapons and man-power, by the end of 1948 the Jews had succeeded in defending their new State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

'..on 15 May 1948, the Arab states publicly proclaimed their aim of creating a "United State of Palestine" in place of the Jewish and Arab, two-state, UN Plan. They claimed the latter was invalid, as it was opposed by Palestine's Arab majority, and maintained that the absence of legal authority made it necessary to intervene to protect Arab lives and property...

By July 1948, the IDF was fielding 63,000 troops; by early spring 1949, 115,000. The Arab armies had an estimated 40,000 troops in July 1948, rising to 55,000 in October 1948, and slightly more by the spring of 1949.'

Although many Arabs chose to remain in Jewish territory, and became Israeli citizens, approximately 656,000 Arabs fled into the areas occupied by Egypt and Jordan, as well as the Arab States. The reasons for this exodus are among the most hotly contested areas in Middle Eastern history. Pro-Palestinian commentators hold that the flight of the Arabs was a result of ‘Israeli terror’ and ‘direct expulsion.’ Whilst supporters of Israel contest that they fled due to instructions from the Arab leaders via radio broadcasts. It is likely that both of these factors contributed to the flight of the Palestinian Arabs, as did the [false] reports of a massacre at Deir Yassin, but it is difficult to prove which was the primary cause. Benny Morris, who is widely regarded as the leading authority on the refugees, concludes that ‘the Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design.’

First of all, it was over 656,000 Arab refugees. In fact, many leaders have estimated it to be closer to 1 million.

Next, the radio broadcast myth has been exposed as just that, a myth. Even mainstream Israeli historians now admit that ethnic cleansing took place in 1948. As for the massacre at Deir Yassin being false, can you provide ANY evidence whatsoever? There were MANY massacres in 1948, such as Tantura. Well over 400 villages were destroyed, FORCING the Palestinians to be expelled. These are all documented facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
Benny Morris: 'Combatants and noncombatants were gunned down in the course of the house-to-house fighting, and, subsequently, after the battle, groups of prisoners and noncombatants were killed in separate, sporadic acts of frenzy and revenge in different parts of the village and outside of Deir Yassin. The remaining villagers were then expelled...'

Eliahu Arbel arrived at the scene April 10. He was an Operations Officer B of the Haganah's Etzioni Brigade. He reported:-
"I saw the horrors that the fighters had created. I saw bodies of women and children, who were murdered in their houses in cold blood by gunfire, with no signs of battle and not as the result of blowing up the houses. From my experience I know well, that there is no war without killing, and that not only combatants get killed. I have seen a great deal of war, but I never saw a sight like Deir Yassin."

'Ben Zion-Cohen (an Irgun commander) reported to the Jabotinsky archives that at some point in Deir Yassin:-

"We eliminated every Arab that came our way."

Mordechai Gihon was a Haganah intelligence officer in Jerusalem. He was in the village at the afternoon of April 9. He reported:-

"Before we got to the village we saw people carrying bodies to the quarry east of Deir Yassin. We entered the village around 3:00 in the afternoon . . . In the village there were tens of bodies. The dissidents got them out of the roads. I told them not to throw the bodies into cisterns and caves, because that was the first place that would be checked..."
"I didn't count the dead. I estimated that there were four pits full of bodies, and in each pit there were 20 bodies, and several tens more in the quarry. I throw out a number, 150.'

1948 ethnic cleansing and Deir Yassin:

http://www.mideastweb.org/pland.htm
'The main Jewish underground army in Palestine (Hagannah) had begun working on a contingency plan for defending a Jewish state from invasion even before the partition plan was approved in November 1947.
Plan Daleth (Plan D):

'..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...'

http://www.counterpunch.org/martin05132004.html

It is likely that both of these factors contributed to the flight of the Palestinian Arabs, as did the [false] reports of a massacre at Deir Yassin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
'Denial by Israeli Foreign Ministry in 1969

In 1969, the Israeli Foreign Ministry published a pamphlet “Background Notes on Current Themes: Deir Yassin” in English denying that there had been a massacre at Deir Yassin, and calling the story "part of a package of fairy tales, for export and home consumption". The pamphlet led to a series of derivative articles giving the same message, especially in America. Menachem Begin's Herut party disseminated a Hebrew translation in Israel, causing a widespread but largely non-public debate within the Israeli establishment. Several former leaders of the Hagannah demanded that the pamphlet be withdrawn on account of its inaccuracy, but the Foreign Ministry explained that "While our intention and desire is to maintain accuracy in our information, we sometimes are forced to deviate from this principle when we have no choice or alternative means to rebuff a propaganda assault or Arab psychological warfare." Yitzhak Levi, the 1948 leader of Hagannah Intelligence, wrote to Begin: "On behalf of the truth and the purity of arms of the Jewish soldier in the War of Independence, I see it as my duty to warn you against continuing to spread this untrue version about what happened in Deir Yassin to the Israeli public. Otherwise there will be no avoiding raising the matter publicly and you will be responsible." Eventually, the Foreign Ministry agreed to stop distributing the pamphlet, but it remains the source of many popular accounts.'

In addition, it must also be remembered that the war produced a similar number of Jewish refugees, who fled, or were forcibly expelled from the Islamic world, a total of 567,654 from 1948 to 1967.

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

'The concept that Jewish emigrants from Arab lands should be considered refugees has been met with opposition from both Zionist and Non-Zionist circles. Zionist opposition, coming mainly from Israeli Zionist politicians of the Mizrachi Jewish community, contends that it is Zionist ideals that were the driving force behind their emigration to Israel. Anti-Zionist opposition contends that the majority of Arab Jews were not Zionists, but were rather forced to leave by direct and indirect actions of Zionist emissaries.

From the Zionist perspective, for instance, Iraqi-born Ran Cohen, a member of the Knesset (Parliament), said: "I have this to say: I am not a refugee. I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee;" Yemeni-born Yisrael Yeshayahu, former Knesset speaker, Labor Party, stated: "We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations;" and Iraqi-born Shlomo Hillel, also a former speaker of the Knesset, Labor Party, claimed: "I don't regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists."[77]

On the Anti-Zionist perspective, Iraqi-Born activist Naeim Giladi alleges that Zionist emissaries used violence to engineer the exodus and disrupt coexistence in Iraq. Further support for this claim has been made by Professors Yehouda Shenhav[77] and Ella Shohat.

The type and extent of linkage between the Jewish exodus from Arab lands and the Palestinian Exodus has also been the source of controversy. Advocacy groups have suggested that there are strong ties between the two processes and some of them even claim that decoupling the two issues is unjust.[78][79] Other scholars such as Phillip mendes and David Cesarani reject the comparison and coupling as superficial and is used as an excuse to withhold justice from Palestinians.[80][6]'

In seeking to paint a picture of Israel as the agressor, you ignore the unwillingness of the Arabs to make peace with Israel. Although the Egyptians signed peace accords with Israel in 1979 in exchange for the Sinai, the Arab States issued the ‘3 No’s of Khartoum’ (No recognition, No negotiation, No peace) in 1967, and most remain in a state of war with the Jewish State.

Funny that it took the Arab states 20 years of terrorizing by the Israelis to finally release these '3 No's of Khatoum'. You seem content to leave out all that happened between 1948-1967. You fail to mention what's happened since 1967, such as the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, MANY massacres that took place - some in REFUGEE CAMPS. It's quite ridiculous because you have been trying to paint a picture of Israel being the defendant, and the Arab states being the aggressors. Unfortunately for you, however, you've provided no evidence. Just baseless claims.