List of villages destroyed by Israel in 1948-1949

FiveB247x

If I'm wrong about the reparations portion, then so be it. I just don't think it's a realistic goal in this scenario. This isn't a government's social policy being corrected nor an invading army taking over foreign lands like Iraq was, this is a long lived war between two very opposed groups - neither of which want to give the other any leeway. Which is why I feel reparations aren't realistic.

As for the comment about the Palestians futhering the occupation. Let me ask you this question, even if you believe what Israel has done and is doing is wrong, can you not recognize that the Palestian government and people can't or don't want to control these terror groups from continuing actions vs Israel or it's civillians? This is a fact. Palestian's aren't merely sitting around just being beat into place at Israeli pro-active military measures. As I stated previously, one side does something, the other retaliates... it becomes tit-for-tat and in such an exchange, neither side is justified. If Palestian people can't control these terror groups from ruining their peace or the process of getting peace, when have we seen them reach other to others for help? Or conversely, when has Israel ask or been outspoken about how to deal with this situation without furthering the bloodshed and hatred? Fact of the matter is that both sides are continuing to fuel the fire and don't do nearly enough to fix it - if they are serious about gaining a lasting peace.

Byrnzie

FiveB247x wrote:

If I'm wrong about the reparations portion, then so be it. I just don't think it's a realistic goal in this scenario. This isn't a government's social policy being corrected nor an invading army taking over foreign lands like Iraq was, this is a long lived war between two very opposed groups - neither of which want to give the other any leeway. Which is why I feel reparations aren't realistic.

Are you serious? Are you saying that Israel didn't ethnically cleanse Palestine - which is something even mainstream Israeli historians now admit to - and steal millions in land and property?

And as far as reparations go, the U.N Security Council has declared that Israel needs to pay compensation to those dispossessed in 1948.

FiveB247x wrote:

As for the comment about the Palestians futhering the occupation. Let me ask you this question, even if you believe what Israel has done and is doing is wrong, can you not recognize that the Palestian government and people can't or don't want to control these terror groups from continuing actions vs Israel or it's civillians? This is a fact. Palestian's aren't merely sitting around just being beat into place at Israeli pro-active military measures. As I stated previously, one side does something, the other retaliates... it becomes tit-for-tat and in such an exchange, neither side is justified. If Palestian people can't control these terror groups from ruining their peace or the process of getting peace, when have we seen them reach other to others for help? Or conversely, when has Israel ask or been outspoken about how to deal with this situation without furthering the bloodshed and hatred? Fact of the matter is that both sides are continuing to fuel the fire and don't do nearly enough to fix it - if they are serious about gaining a lasting peace.

I think you fail to understand that the Palestinians are living every minute, of every day of their lives under a brutal, repressive military occupation. This goes beyond one side doing something and the other retaliating.

And in answer to the rest of your post, I'll pose another question; how do you think Palestinian retaliation/resistance/terrorism - or whatever you choose to call it - justifies the occupation? In fact, what, if anything, does Palestinian violence have to do with Isfrael's occupation and decision to expand the settlements?

FiveB247x

And just as you can sit here and claim "ethnic cleansing" wasn't it the opposite side during this conflict who were trying to whipe Israel off the map and push them to the sea in several wars they began? Each coin has two sides, and you're just calling heads...

As for your below question, I point to the IRA un-arming themselves to create a peace agreement which still exists today. Violence is not the answer. There are other forms of resistance and successful ways to gain international concensus, backing and improvements. It is very obvious, that when terrorists attack or do certain things, Israel responds with violence or similar. Whether you find the two unconnected is irrelevant. For Israel, they feel justified in reacted as such - so therefore, cutting out the violence will help stop Israel from doing such things in return. Once violence is stopped, a clearer and more serious talk can take place which would hopefully lead to a full peace for both sides. This is the basic and generic blueprint everyone has for the process. Anything else is considered distraction, counterproductive and against the grain.

Byrnzie wrote:

Are you serious? Are you saying that Israel didn't ethnically cleanse Palestine - which is something even mainstream Israeli historians now admit to - and steal millions in land and property?



I think you fail to understand that the Palestinians are living every minute, of every day of their lives under a brutal, repressive military occupation. This goes beyond one side doing something and the other retaliating.

And in answer to the rest of your post, I'll pose another question; how do you think Palestinian retaliation/resistance/terrorism - or whatever you choose to call it - justifies the occupation? In fact, what, if anything, does Palestinian violence have to do with Isfrael's occupation and decision to expand the settlements?

polaris

FiveB247x wrote:

As for the comment about the Palestians futhering the occupation. Let me ask you this question, even if you believe what Israel has done and is doing is wrong, can you not recognize that the Palestian government and people can't or don't want to control these terror groups from continuing actions vs Israel or it's civillians? This is a fact. Palestian's aren't merely sitting around just being beat into place at Israeli pro-active military measures. As I stated previously, one side does something, the other retaliates... it becomes tit-for-tat and in such an exchange, neither side is justified. If Palestian people can't control these terror groups from ruining their peace or the process of getting peace, when have we seen them reach other to others for help? Or conversely, when has Israel ask or been outspoken about how to deal with this situation without furthering the bloodshed and hatred? Fact of the matter is that both sides are continuing to fuel the fire and don't do nearly enough to fix it - if they are serious about gaining a lasting peace.

all this thinking shows is that all you need to do is push a people hard enuf so they fight back and you can then justify your actions ...

years of occupation and oppression finally blew over and they decided to fight back (terrorist groups) and now the world sees this as simply two children who need to sit in a corner and make up ...

it's obviously not that simple - and to claim that both sides are equally responsible for this conflict is ignoring key historical occurences ...

Byrnzie

FiveB247x wrote:

And just as you can sit here and claim "ethnic cleansing" wasn't it the opposite side during this conflict who were trying to whipe Israel off the map and push them to the sea in several wars they began? Each coin has two sides, and you're just calling heads...

No, this never happened. The Palestinians have never tried to wipe Israel off the map. They've never had the means to do so.

Although if you're referring to Egypt in 1967 then if you look at the facts you'll see that it was Israel that provoked the build-up to the war, and Israel that began the war.

If you're talking about the Yom Kippur war in 1973 then there was no intention of wiping Israel off the map, but simply an attempt to recapture land stolen by Israel in 1967.

FiveB247x wrote:

As for your below question, I point to the IRA un-arming themselves to create a peace agreement which still exists today. Violence is not the answer. There are other forms of resistance and successful ways to gain international concensus, backing and improvements. It is very obvious, that when terrorists attack or do certain things, Israel responds with violence or similar. Whether you find the two unconnected is irrelevant. For Israel, they feel justified in reacted as such - so therefore, cutting out the violence will help stop Israel from doing such things in return. Once violence is stopped, a clearer and more serious talk can take place which would hopefully lead to a full peace for both sides. This is the basic and generic blueprint everyone has for the process. Anything else is considered distraction, counterproductive and against the grain.

So you're asking for Palestinians to lay down their arms but you make no such demands of the Israeli's?
And you still haven't answered my question with regards to how any of the violence from Palestinians in any way justifies, or neccesitates the occupation and the settlements.

As regards non-violence:

Michael Neumann:
'It is sometimes supposed that the Palestinians should have adopted nonviolent resistance as their strategy; even that their "failure" to do so is some dark indication of their character. Such opinions are voiced in apparent ignorance of the fact that the Palestinians have always used a mixture of violent and nonviolent responses - petitions, strikes, marches. This means in part that many Palestinians have never resisted by any but nonviolent means. The results have been less than impressive. In addition, the entire first intifada, brutally suppressed, used forms of "violence" - so juvenile and tentative - kids throwing rocks - that they hardly deserve, in the face of the massive professional army thrown against them, that description.

Nonviolence has never "worked" in any politically relevant sense of the word, and there is no reason to suppose it ever will. It has never, largely on it's own strength, achieved the political objectives of those who employed it.
There are supposedly three major examples of successful nonviolence: Gandhi's independence movement, the U.S civil rights movement, and the South African campaigns against Apartheid. None of them performed as advertised.
Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have shifted over time: he said that, if he changed his mind from one week to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a united India, and nonviolence itself, and end to civil or ethnic strife on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count his project as a tragic failure.
What of independence itself? Historians might argue about it's causes, but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's campaign. The British began contemplating - admittedly with avrying degrees of sincerity - some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi did anything, as early as 1918. A.J.P Taylor says that after World War I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India was once again producing it's own cotton and buying cheap textiles from Japan. Later India's strategic importance, while valued by many, became questioned by some who saw the oil of the Middle East and the Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the second world war, Britain's will to hold onto it's empire had pretty well crumbled, for reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it. A big factor was the terrorism - and this need not be a term of condemnation - quite regularly employed against the British. It was not enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India was becoming more trouble than it was worth. All things considered, the well-founded fear of violence had far more effect on British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and creative political thinker, but he was not a victor.

How about the U.S civil rights movement? It would be difficult and ungenerous to argue that it wa unsuccessful, outrageous to claim that it was anything but a long and dangerous struggle. But when that it is conceded, the fact remains that Martin Luther King's civil rights movement was practically a federal government project. It's roots may have run deep, but it's impetus came from the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and from the subsequent attempts to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The students who braved a hell to accomplish this goal are well remembered. Sometimes forgotten is the U.S government's almost spectacular determination to see that federal law was respected. Eisenhower sent, not the FBI, not a bunch of lawyers, but one of the best and proudest units of the U.S army, the 101st Airborne, to keep order in Little Rock and to see that the "federalized" Arkansas national guard stayed on the right side of the dispute. Though there was never any hint of an impending battle between federal and state military forces, the message couldn't have been clearer: we, the federal government, are prepared to do whatever it takes to enforce our will.
This message is an undercurrent throughout throughout the civil rights struggles of the 1950's and 1960's. Though Martin Luther King still had to overcome vicious, sometimes deadly resistance, he himself remarked that surprisingly few people were killed or seriously injured in the struggle. The surprise diminishes with the recollection that there was real federal muscle behind the nonviolent campaign. For a variety of motives, both virtuous and cynical, the U.S government wanted the South to be integrated and to recognize black civil rights. Nonviolence achieved it's ends largley because the violence of it's opponents was severely constrained. In 1962, Kennedy federalized the National Guard and sent in combat troops to quell segregationist rioting in Oxford, Mississippi. Johnson did the same thing in 1965, after anti-civil rights violence in Alabama. While any political movement has allies and benefits from available circumstances, having the might of the U.S goverment behind you goes far beyond the ordinary advantages accompanying political activity. The nonviolence of the U.S civil rights movement sets an example only for those who have the overwhelming armed force of a government on their side.

As for South Africa, it is a minor miracle of wishful thinking that anyone could suppose nonviolence played a major role in the collapse of Apartheid.
In the first place, the ANC was never a nonviolent movement but a movement that decided, on occasion and for practical reasons, to use nonviolent tactics...
Secondly, violence was used extensively throughout the course of the Anti-Apartheid struggle. It can be argued that the violence was essentially defensive, but that's not the point: nonviolence as a doctrine rejects the use of of violence in self-defense. To say that blacks used violence in self-defense or as resistance to oppression is to say, I think, that they were justified. It is certainly not to say that they were nonviolent.
Third, violence played a major role in causing both the boycott of South Africa and the demise of Apartheid....the boycott only aquired some teeth strating in 1977, after the Soweto riots in 1976, nd again in 1985-1986, after the township riots of 184-1985...

In short, it is a myth that nonviolence brought all the victories it is supposed to have in it's ledger. In fact, it brought about none of them.
How does this bear on the Israel-Palestine conflict? In that situation, success is far less likely than in the cases we have examined. Unlike Martin Luther King, the Palestinians are working against a state, not with one. Their opponents are far more ruthless than the British were in the twilight of the empire. Unlike the Indians and South Africans, they do not vastly outnumber their oppressors. And neither the Boers nor the English ever had anything like the moral authority Israel enjoys in the hearts and minds of Americans, much less it's enormous support network. Nonviolent protest might overcome Israel's prestige in ten or twenty years, but the Palestinians might well suppose they do not have that long.'

Byrnzie

polaris wrote:

all this thinking shows is that all you need to do is push a people hard enuf so they fight back and you can then justify your actions ...

years of occupation and oppression finally blew over and they decided to fight back (terrorist groups) and now the world sees this as simply two children who need to sit in a corner and make up ...

it's obviously not that simple - and to claim that both sides are equally responsible for this conflict is ignoring key historical occurences ...

Well put.

fuck

FiveB247x wrote:

And just as you can sit here and claim "ethnic cleansing" wasn't it the opposite side during this conflict who were trying to whipe Israel off the map and push them to the sea in several wars they began? Each coin has two sides, and you're just calling heads...

Other than the fact that this still does not justify Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine...

The entire concept of "wipe Israel off the map" and "push them to the sea" is ridiculous and untrue.

When the Israelis began their ethnic cleansing and declared their independence, they were already in a war with Palestine. Violence and riots were already breaking out through the streets, and all those villages I listed on Page 1 were destroyed by the Israelis.

The later wars were not all "started by the Arabs." In fact, most, if not all, were started by the Israelis.

As for your below question, I point to the IRA un-arming themselves to create a peace agreement which still exists today. Violence is not the answer. There are other forms of resistance and successful ways to gain international concensus, backing and improvements. It is very obvious, that when terrorists attack or do certain things, Israel responds with violence or similar. Whether you find the two unconnected is irrelevant. For Israel, they feel justified in reacted as such - so therefore, cutting out the violence will help stop Israel from doing such things in return. Once violence is stopped, a clearer and more serious talk can take place which would hopefully lead to a full peace for both sides. This is the basic and generic blueprint everyone has for the process. Anything else is considered distraction, counterproductive and against the grain.

The Palestinians tried MANY nonviolent tactics before. The only problem is that you never heard about it through the news or anything. The Palestinians for years and years were trying to declare their independence, but the British would not allow them to. The Palestinians would send delegations to the UK, hold congressional meetings, etc, but no one would listen to them. Violence erupted due to Israeli aggression, not Palestinian aggression. After the Palestinians were dispossessed of their own land and forced to live under a brutal occupation, they had to fight back using guerrilla warfare tactics, something used in EVERY war, like the American Revolution, Nazi Occupation of France, French Occupation of Algeria, etc etc.

And by the way: Referring to Israel's violent tactics as "retaliation" is just plain ridiculous. Israel does NOT retaliate to "terrorist" attacks. Israel is and has been the aggressor in this conflict. If anything, these "terror" attacks (which are nothing compared to those of the Israelis) are actual retaliation methods -- that is, the Palestinians retaliated to the occupation.

To call terms and measures accepted by most countries as "unrealistic" is like saying "Nader would be a great president, but it's unrealistic that he would ever be elected" and thus vote for a "lesser of 2 evils" thing. The only reason this is "unrealistic" is because Israel - and the U.S. - have been able to exercise illegal activities without any country saying or doing anything about it. Once international pressure is actually applied to this case, mainly by civilians and citizens of those countries, then maybe we can make these terms "realistic".

FiveB247x

If things were as cut and dry or merely "one-sided" as you're claiming them to be, this wouldn't be much of a discussion. It's very obvious you have your mind made up about who's in the right or wrong in this matter, so there's not much sense in rehashing each particular detail. Just as you post articles and commentary regarding each item which back one side, I can find "creditable" sources stating the flip side. Doesn't really solve much in the end though does it. Six in one hand, half-a-dozen in the other... you know? So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

fuck

FiveB247x wrote:

I can find "creditable" sources stating the flip side.

can you please do that? I'm really interested to see what you would post.

Byrnzie

FiveB247x wrote:

Just as you post articles and commentary regarding each item which back one side, I can find "creditable" sources stating the flip side.

Go on then. You mentioned them earlier. I'd love to see these 'creditable' articles.
Bring 'em on!

Edit: I'll respond to any and all 'creditable' apologists for the criminal occupation tomorrow. I hope you include Alan Dershowitz as a creditable source. That would make my day.

FiveB247x

Just because you can find articles and commentary that back your opinion, doesn't make your opinion correct. Same goes for anything posting something with a pro-Israeli spin. And to be honest, I don't plan on posting anything from the other side (even though it's very easy to find and do), because all you will do is argue it's validity or creditibility.... something anyone can do on this subject matter. I'm not taking sides in this matter, yet you keep trying to claim I am. I find your commentary more a reflection of revisionist history (pertaining to the wars), then realistic facts about the timeline of occurences in the past 50+ yrs.

polaris

the word is "credible" people ...

FiveB247x

Sorry for my poor spelling - I'm rushing and swamped at work!

polaris wrote:

the word is "credible" people ...

polaris

FiveB247x wrote:

Sorry for my poor spelling - I'm rushing and swamped at work!

haha ... no worries ... i'm not trying to be the spell-check grammar person ... i just found it amusing that there is this "serious" discussion amongst educated people and that word is being butchered!! ...

FiveB247x

Yeah I know and I'm used to it, cause I always rush and don't spell check enough. That's one of the few things I'll actually apologize for when debating with people ..haha ;-)

polaris wrote:

haha ... no worries ... i'm not trying to be the spell-check grammar person ... i just found it amusing that there is this "serious" discussion amongst educated people and that word is being butchered!! ...

SammyK14

if the palestinians put down their weapons, there would be no more war...

if the israelis put down their weapons, there would be no more israel...

Thecure

Byrnzie wrote:

No, this never happened. The Palestinians have never tried to wipe Israel off the map. They've never had the means to do so.

Although if you're referring to Egypt in 1967 then if you look at the facts you'll see that it was Israel that provoked the build-up to the war, and Israel that began the war.

If you're talking about the Yom Kippur war in 1973 then there was no intention of wiping Israel off the map, but simply an attempt to recapture land stolen by Israel in 1967.



So you're asking for Palestinians to lay down their arms but you make no such demands of the Israeli's?
And you still haven't answered my question with regards to how any of the violence from Palestinians in any way justifies, or neccesitates the occupation and the settlements.

As regards non-violence:

Michael Neumann:
'It is sometimes supposed that the Palestinians should have adopted nonviolent resistance as their strategy; even that their "failure" to do so is some dark indication of their character. Such opinions are voiced in apparent ignorance of the fact that the Palestinians have always used a mixture of violent and nonviolent responses - petitions, strikes, marches. This means in part that many Palestinians have never resisted by any but nonviolent means. The results have been less than impressive. In addition, the entire first intifada, brutally suppressed, used forms of "violence" - so juvenile and tentative - kids throwing rocks - that they hardly deserve, in the face of the massive professional army thrown against them, that description.

Nonviolence has never "worked" in any politically relevant sense of the word, and there is no reason to suppose it ever will. It has never, largely on it's own strength, achieved the political objectives of those who employed it.
There are supposedly three major examples of successful nonviolence: Gandhi's independence movement, the U.S civil rights movement, and the South African campaigns against Apartheid. None of them performed as advertised.
Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have shifted over time: he said that, if he changed his mind from one week to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a united India, and nonviolence itself, and end to civil or ethnic strife on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count his project as a tragic failure.
What of independence itself? Historians might argue about it's causes, but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's campaign. The British began contemplating - admittedly with avrying degrees of sincerity - some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi did anything, as early as 1918. A.J.P Taylor says that after World War I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India was once again producing it's own cotton and buying cheap textiles from Japan. Later India's strategic importance, while valued by many, became questioned by some who saw the oil of the Middle East and the Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the second world war, Britain's will to hold onto it's empire had pretty well crumbled, for reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it. A big factor was the terrorism - and this need not be a term of condemnation - quite regularly employed against the British. It was not enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India was becoming more trouble than it was worth. All things considered, the well-founded fear of violence had far more effect on British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and creative political thinker, but he was not a victor.

How about the U.S civil rights movement? It would be difficult and ungenerous to argue that it wa unsuccessful, outrageous to claim that it was anything but a long and dangerous struggle. But when that it is conceded, the fact remains that Martin Luther King's civil rights movement was practically a federal government project. It's roots may have run deep, but it's impetus came from the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and from the subsequent attempts to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The students who braved a hell to accomplish this goal are well remembered. Sometimes forgotten is the U.S government's almost spectacular determination to see that federal law was respected. Eisenhower sent, not the FBI, not a bunch of lawyers, but one of the best and proudest units of the U.S army, the 101st Airborne, to keep order in Little Rock and to see that the "federalized" Arkansas national guard stayed on the right side of the dispute. Though there was never any hint of an impending battle between federal and state military forces, the message couldn't have been clearer: we, the federal government, are prepared to do whatever it takes to enforce our will.
This message is an undercurrent throughout throughout the civil rights struggles of the 1950's and 1960's. Though Martin Luther King still had to overcome vicious, sometimes deadly resistance, he himself remarked that surprisingly few people were killed or seriously injured in the struggle. The surprise diminishes with the recollection that there was real federal muscle behind the nonviolent campaign. For a variety of motives, both virtuous and cynical, the U.S government wanted the South to be integrated and to recognize black civil rights. Nonviolence achieved it's ends largley because the violence of it's opponents was severely constrained. In 1962, Kennedy federalized the National Guard and sent in combat troops to quell segregationist rioting in Oxford, Mississippi. Johnson did the same thing in 1965, after anti-civil rights violence in Alabama. While any political movement has allies and benefits from available circumstances, having the might of the U.S goverment behind you goes far beyond the ordinary advantages accompanying political activity. The nonviolence of the U.S civil rights movement sets an example only for those who have the overwhelming armed force of a government on their side.

As for South Africa, it is a minor miracle of wishful thinking that anyone could suppose nonviolence played a major role in the collapse of Apartheid.
In the first place, the ANC was never a nonviolent movement but a movement that decided, on occasion and for practical reasons, to use nonviolent tactics...
Secondly, violence was used extensively throughout the course of the Anti-Apartheid struggle. It can be argued that the violence was essentially defensive, but that's not the point: nonviolence as a doctrine rejects the use of of violence in self-defense. To say that blacks used violence in self-defense or as resistance to oppression is to say, I think, that they were justified. It is certainly not to say that they were nonviolent.
Third, violence played a major role in causing both the boycott of South Africa and the demise of Apartheid....the boycott only aquired some teeth strating in 1977, after the Soweto riots in 1976, nd again in 1985-1986, after the township riots of 184-1985...

In short, it is a myth that nonviolence brought all the victories it is supposed to have in it's ledger. In fact, it brought about none of them.
How does this bear on the Israel-Palestine conflict? In that situation, success is far less likely than in the cases we have examined. Unlike Martin Luther King, the Palestinians are working against a state, not with one. Their opponents are far more ruthless than the British were in the twilight of the empire. Unlike the Indians and South Africans, they do not vastly outnumber their oppressors. And neither the Boers nor the English ever had anything like the moral authority Israel enjoys in the hearts and minds of Americans, much less it's enormous support network. Nonviolent protest might overcome Israel's prestige in ten or twenty years, but the Palestinians might well suppose they do not have that long.'

can you please let me know who this writer is and maybe put some reference to where we can find him on the web.

fuck

Thecure wrote:

can you please let me know who this writer is and maybe put some reference to where we can find him on the web.

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

bigdvs

heads up, contradictions to a bunch of assumptions made by outlaw and byrnzie in just the first 2/3 pages of this thread:


"In the 1830s Egypt conquered Palestine and made some minor improvements and many Egyptians, in particular soldiers, settled there. It was however during this period that the Jews of Safed were massacred in 1831 by Druzes. Safed was resettled with Kurds and Algerians. This was followed in 1837 by earthquakes in Safed and Tiberias. In 1838 Palestine was given back to the Turks. However, with the advent of early Zionism, just prior to the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the Jews had become a small majority in the central Judea region. Many were not Ottoman citizens and were expelled to Egypt at the time that war was declared."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine#Ottoman_Period_1517-1917

(see I can use the wiki too)

So as early as 1830 muslims are slaughtering peaceful settled Jews. And rather then provide sanctuary for those that lived there, the empire tosses them all out of there homes in 1914. Seems like most of them just came back 30 years later and wanted what was there's in Judea back.

Its Evolution Baby

bigdvs wrote:

heads up, contradictions to a bunch of assumptions made by outlaw and byrnzie in just the first 2/3 pages of this thread:


"In the 1830s Egypt conquered Palestine and made some minor improvements and many Egyptians, in particular soldiers, settled there. It was however during this period that the Jews of Safed were massacred in 1831 by Druzes. Safed was resettled with Kurds and Algerians. This was followed in 1837 by earthquakes in Safed and Tiberias. In 1838 Palestine was given back to the Turks. However, with the advent of early Zionism, just prior to the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the Jews had become a small majority in the central Judea region. Many were not Ottoman citizens and were expelled to Egypt at the time that war was declared."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine#Ottoman_Period_1517-1917

(see I can use the wiki too)

So as early as 1830 muslims are slaughtering peaceful settled Jews. And rather then provide sanctuary for those that lived there, the empire tosses them all out of there homes in 1914. Seems like most of them just came back 30 years later and wanted what was there's in Judea back.

Well you've basically proved my point so I thank you.

After reading this you have to see there is no good guy/ bad guy in this issue.

We should be working for a peaceful resolution not who's to blame the violence in Israel.