List of villages destroyed by Israel in 1948-1949

Byrnzie

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Besides the Jews were already there as they were buying land sold to them by the Palestinians.

They did not invade and occupy the country illegally. They bought up land when they had no where to do in the turmoil of the 30's and 40's.

They were buying up land from absentee Ottoman landowners, right. So what? The Zionists had made it perfectly clear that what they were after was Jewish Sovereign state in Palelstine. This was to be a state run by Jews for Jews. How would you expect the native inhabitants to respond to this?

It had nothing to do with the turmoil in the 30's and 40's as the land grab was already underway at the turn of the century, well before the Nazis appeared on the scene.

fuck

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

300 Million Americans does not equate to 1.2 million Arabs.

would you be happier if he said "give 56% of America to 150 million tazmanians"???

Besides the Jews were already there as they were buying land sold to them by the Palestinians.

Many Jewish immigrants were there ILLEGALLY, and I already responded to the incorrect idea that the Palestinians sold them land.

fuck

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

They pushed for the independent state after WWII. Before that they were just immigrating to the country.

This is not true.

So the creation of Israel had a lot to do with WWII.

It definitely helped it come about faster, but the Zionist movement was trying to establish an independent Jewish nation for decades by then.

Its Evolution Baby

The land grab you guys are referring to had more to do with the UK then Palestine.

Still the Jews OWNED the land. Blame the UK.

Blame the US and Truman for signing off on Israel.

Blame Israel for there heinous actions since the creation of the state.

All I have been arguing is that the Palestinians are not the innocent "Natives" that some on this board make them out to be, but I guess it is one sided...

fuck

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

The land grab you guys are referring to had more to do with the UK then Palestine.

Still the Jews OWNED the land. Blame the UK.

Blame the US and Truman for signing off on Israel.

Blame Israel for there heinous actions since the creation of the state.

the Zionist Jews who pushed for the state were the ones pushing for the UK and US to do that. they were the ones committing atrocious acts in Palestine. They were the ones exploiting the holocaust, much like Bush exploits 9/11. That's the truth of it, and you can CERTAINLY blame Israel for much before it's existence (or rather, the Zionists).

All I have been arguing is that the Palestinians are not the innocent "Natives" that some on this board make them out to be, but I guess it is one sided...

1) why the fuck is natives in quotes?
2) They are COMPLETELY innocent, and you have not proven otherwise. until you do, I'm waiting.

fuck

oh and the Jews did not OWN the land at ALL. they owned 6% only. Then the UN Partition Plan that the Jews "reluctantly" accepted gave them 55% of the land... then the Israelis STOLE even MORE.

Its Evolution Baby

_outlaw wrote:

the Zionist Jews who pushed for the state were the ones pushing for the UK and US to do that. they were the ones committing atrocious acts in Palestine. They were the ones exploiting the holocaust, much like Bush exploits 9/11. That's the truth of it, and you can CERTAINLY blame Israel for much before it's existence (or rather, the Zionists).


1) why the fuck is natives in quotes?
2) They are COMPLETELY innocent, and you have not proven otherwise. until you do, I'm waiting.

Because you will never change your mind on this matter. To you its black and white and there is no gray area.

I am ONLY arguing there is a gray area not even if the Jews were more wrong or not.

So you can keep waiting all day for all I care. I have nothing really more to say on this topic.

fuck

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Because you will never change your mind on this matter. To you its black and white and there is no gray area.

I am ONLY arguing there is a gray area not even if the Jews were more wrong or not.

So you can keep waiting all day for all I care. I have nothing really more to say on this topic.

The problem is that everything you've argued is simply not true. If you begin using facts in your arguments, then maybe you can prove something to me and anyone else reading this.

Why are you done with this? You can't refute anything me or Byrnzie said?

Byrnzie

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

They pushed for the independent state after WWII. Before that they were just immigrating to the country.

So the creation of Israel had a lot to do with WWII.

Not so. You need to read the documentary record. It makes perfectly clear that what they were after was a sovereign Jewish state.


Theodore Herzl - 1896:

'The idea which I have developed in this pamphlet is a very old one: it is the restoration of the Jewish State....Let the sovereignty be granted us over a portion of the globe large enough to satisfy the rightful requirements of a nation, the rest we shall manage for ourselves'.

'When a Zionist delegation appeared on 27th February 1919 before the supreme Allied Council, Weizmann was asked by Lansing, the American secretary of state, what exactly was meant by the phrase "a Jewish national home." Weizmann replied that for the moment an autonomous Jewish government was not wanted, but that he expected that seventy to eighty thousand Jews would emigrate to Palestine annually. Gradually a nation would emerge which would be as Jewish as the French nation is French, and the British nation British. Later, when the Jews formed the large majority, they would establish such a government as would answer to the state of the development of the country and to their ideals'.

'The British were in on the half-hearted deception:

'As Lloyd George made clear, the British government, including himself and Balfour, always understood "a national home for the Jewish people" to mean a Jewish state, and that it used the circumlocution merely to deflect Arab opposition is clear from a memorandum of Herbert Young, a young Foreign Office official, in 1921: the problem of coping with Palestinian opposition "is one of tactics, not strategy, the general strategic idea...being the gradual immigration of Jews into Palestine until that country becomes a predomininantly Jewish state...But it is questionable whether we are in a position to tell the Arabs what out policy really means.'

Byrnzie

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

All I have been arguing is that the Palestinians are not the innocent "Natives" that some on this board make them out to be, but I guess it is one sided...

The Palestinians had done nothing wrong. They were merely trying to live their lives in Palestine, until the Zionists came along looking to dispossess them. The Zionist enterprise was an illegitimate one from the beginning. The Palestinians had no choice but to try to defend themselves.

Byrnzie

An interesting book if anyone's interested. I've just started reading it.

http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216339598&sr=8-1

fuck

Byrnzie wrote:

An interesting book if anyone's interested. I've just started reading it.

http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216339598&sr=8-1

I just started The Iron Cage by Rashid Khalidi. If you haven't checked it out already, I suggest you check it out. Very good book.

cincybearcat

Have you ever thought about reading a bokk that challenges your point of view rather than just looking for something you already agree with?

I find many people read and "research" only what will make them feel better about their opinions...not the other way around. Myself included many times.

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

Have you ever thought about reading a bokk that challenges your point of view rather than just looking for something you already agree with?

I find many people read and "research" only what will make them feel better about their opinions...not the other way around. Myself included many times.

I've read the documentary record re:the occupation, the two-state settlement, the right of return, Israel's human rights abuses. It's no mystery. It's as clear as light.

Why, what 'challenging' book, or books, did you have in mind?

fuck

cincybearcat wrote:

Have you ever thought about reading a bokk that challenges your point of view rather than just looking for something you already agree with?

I find many people read and "research" only what will make them feel better about their opinions...not the other way around. Myself included many times.

The book I'm reading is by a prominent professor at Columbia University who sites all his information.

Byrnzie

By the way, Outlaw, I'd be careful. If you call people out for being liars, and for indulging in their own personal fantasies re: Israel/Palestine and which have no relation to the facts, then you run the risk of being banned by the moderators.

fuck

Byrnzie wrote:

By the way, Outlaw, I'd be careful. If you call people out for being liars, and for indulging in their own personal fantasies re: Israel/Palestine and which have no relation to the facts, then you run the risk of being banned by the moderators.

Haha, thanks for the warning. I try not to be disrespectful to the person who I'm debating with.

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

I've read the documentary record re:the occupation, the two-state settlement, the right of return, Israel's human rights abuses. It's no mystery. It's as clear as light.

Why, what 'challenging' book, or books, did you have in mind?

Actually, no book on this matter. I was really just wondering after I saw what other book you were reading.

Death in Gaza is a terrific documentary though. I think it does a pretty good job showing both sides...it's very sad to see though. Hate is learned...and the children there are soaking it all up.

FiveB247x

Each side can do make a long list of adjustments to better the situation for their own people and the opposition side.

As for your comment about being a fairy tale - in South Africa, after decades and decades of apartheid, they stopped it and began to try and adjust their society to become more integrated. They also setup "Truth and Reconsiliation trials" in which victims from atrocities could tell their stories in order to get them out in the open and create an atmosphere of understanding and healing. This is a real world example of how you could resolve this situation once a peace is made. Another real world example would be the Ireland/IRA problem which has been extemely successful. Simply offering critizism of one side or the other at this moment in time doesn't offer anything but bias of your own beliefs and your take on history. It's also unproductive to a solution.

Also, each side should do more to facilitate a solution - not sit back and hope other nations either pro-actively try to help or disband any type of progress. Trying to convince the world your either the victim or perpitrator of a crime (depending on how you view the situation) doesn't fix the problem or offer a solution.

_outlaw wrote:

Neither side is justified in their actions? The Palestinian struggle, while you can't technically JUSTIFY them killing civilians, after having seen what they've been through, it's understandable to say the least. The Palestinians have been subjected to significant losses, and just pure humiliation and racism.

what's your solution? To simply say "what's done is done" and "put the past behind us and work for a better future"? This isn't a fairy tale. This kind of destruction still takes place until today where the Israelis have stripped all Palestinians of their rights. It's time you guys see the reality of the situation. This isn't a case where both sides are hurting eachother in the same way. This is an occupation by one side over the other.

brain of c

kill 'em all.......metallica