| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| 1930-40's Jewish terrorist activities in Palestine | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 25 2003, 09:28 PM (833 Views) | |
| Hoss | Sep 26 2003, 07:49 AM Post #16 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Your long post was well stated Wichita. I have read a lot of books on the subject but don't feel like undertaking the research project of getting all the footnotes of the sources for the information. Also, something that is never mentioned is Transjordan stealing large portions of Palestinian land in collusion with the British. It's always the mean old Israelis. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Sep 26 2003, 08:05 AM Post #17 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
NZ, here is a link to The Israel Museum. http://www.imj.org.il/ Check out the section on The Dead Sea Scroll. These are scrolls written in Hebrew thousands of years ago, and found in Israel. Is that enough of a historical claim for you? Or will you twist the archaelogicol evidence as you do everything else. By the way Jesus was Jewish and he lived in the land at a time when it was controlled by the Romans, not the Palestinians. Does this mean the Italians have a claim to the land????? Frankly, with my preparations for my High Holy Days I don't have the time or energy to refute you point by point the way Wichita did (Thank you Wichita!!!!) No matter what I say you will just put your usual anti-semitic twist on it and I am tired of your nonsense. If you want to come to me with real questions about my heritage I would be glad to oblige, but you can take your anti-semitic revisions of history and stuff them where the sun doesn't shine
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Sep 26 2003, 09:18 AM Post #18 |
|
Unregistered
|
Also, we know the Temple Mount exists. How can you say that there is no evidence that Palestine is not the Jewish ancestral homeland? |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| polarslam | Sep 28 2003, 01:47 AM Post #19 |
![]()
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
Zionest acts of terror were common from the early 1900's on and helped contribute to their success in establishing the state of Isreal 50 years later, in some ways its not surprising to see Palestinans resorting to such time proven methods to accheive their goals. In reality only a leader strong enough to end the violence from both sides will achieve any sort of comprimise. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Sep 28 2003, 07:06 PM Post #20 |
|
Lieutenant
|
surely then, the fact that so many people can look at the same information and then make contradictory conclusions, points to the grave danger of using those sources of information as the basis for the creation of a new nation/state ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Sep 28 2003, 07:09 PM Post #21 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
What information does the United Nations use when they create a nation/state? Here's the pertinent UN Resolution... http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/partition.html |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Sep 28 2003, 11:15 PM Post #22 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
NZ, I do not know if you saw the above reply of mine labeled: Posted: Sep 26 2003, 01:27 AM It offers a book as a resource, the original reply offers more detail. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Sep 29 2003, 11:35 PM Post #23 |
|
Lieutenant
|
thanks to everyone who posted links to various sites - witchita / minnn : we can trade sources and facts and figures all day long, and pick holes in each others posts, but this in the end is not very fruitful, as there are ALWAYS two sides to EVERY story in life and both sides have some right and some wrong in their corner and I could reply in kind to every post. However, in the case of the Palestine / Israel question, I simply beleive that when one considers all the issues, with an open mind, based upon what is generally regarded as "true", when you consider what the people of the day said and how they said it, there is no question that the Palestinian people have a little "more right" in their corner than the Jewish people. That is not to slight or deny the suffering that the Jewish people have suffered, but, to me, the suffering of the Jewish people is a separate issue to the issue of Palestine. Suffering may have contributed to the current Palestine problem, but this suffering is not part of the solution. I would like to post a link from the United Nations report commissioned in 1990, which summarises this whole issue from the very beginning, right up to modern times, in language from the time the events occur. We hear from British ministers, Zionist leaders, the Palestians, other players of the times eg: the King-Crane report commissioned by US President Woodrow Wilson, and many others, both in formal and more "off the record" type formats. Although only a summary, this 1990 report is still 80 pages long and it takes a bit of reading, however I strongly urge anyone interested in middle east affairs to make the effort. To me, IMHO, it paints an unmistakeable picture of the thinking of the time and WHY things have happened the way they have. The main points to me are - 1) the British made a giantic cock up, by promising both sides what they wanted to hear. The basis of the Jewish legal claim to Palestine, the infamous Balfour Declaration, seems deliberately unclear as to what was actually envisioned for the region, promising a homeland for the jewish people in Palestine, whilst at the same time, protecting all the civil and legal rights of the indigenous people already there, the Arabs. 2) the idea of a jewish homeland in Palestine was, for many years, a laughable idea. Quotes from the founder of Zionism, Theodore Hertzel, and from the American Presidential King-Crane commission support this, the latter concluding that the "historical" claim of the jewish people to Palestine "can hardly be seriously considered". At least 4 other countries had already been talked about or promoted as possible areas for jewish settlement, before Palestine was suggested, on an "historical claim". (the other countries were Uganda, Congo, Argentina and Cyprus). Is it not true that the Orthodox jews of the time were AGAINST the formation of Israel, because the intended country was situated on Arab land ? minnn - historical "link" or not; even if everything the "historical" evidence says is completely accurate and true about the ancient Jewish kingdom; is it fair, or reasonable for one ethnic group to take over land which their peoples had not occupied as anything other than a tiny minority in more than 1000 years ? Do the vast majority already there just disapear ? The UN report talks of the Arabs being 90% of the population of Palestine and owning 97% of the land at the start of the issue. Sure, there have always been Jews living in Palestine, but it can not be denied that for 1000 years, the arabs have been by far the majority group there. The ancient jewish kingdom of Ertzel Israel has not existed for 2500 years. As you asked yourself, do the Italians have a claim to Israel because it was once run by the Romans ? I would say yes - it would be just as fair for the Italians to return to Israel 2000 years after leaving Palestine and say they wanted it back, as it was for the Jews to return there after 2500 years and say they wanted it back. The French could claim Britain by that reasoning, as Britain was conquered by the French in 1066. The biggest mistake made by the Palestinains was to reject the 50 : 50 partition plan of the UN in 1948. That is easy to say in hindsite, because remember, the idea that ALL of their land might be taken was just laughable at the time. After all, how many of us would voluntarily give away half of our home / land if some people came knocking on the door one day claiming that 1000 years ago, their ancestors had lived where your house is now and they wanted the land back? As more proof of their "claim", these new people told you that their cousins were living in the house next door to yours. Do you think you would say, "oh did they really ? Oh yuo can have it then, but okay, well, to be fair I'm only going to give you HALF of my house" ??????? I know I wouldn't do this. now, after all the wars and bloodshed, the Palestinians have nothing like even the half share that was intended by the UN, and the Palestinain homeland, when it arrives, will be just a sliver of the land that was once theirs. No one is this episode is without blame; much suffering and betrayal has gone on by everyone. However, it must be clear by now, that this issue WILL NOT go away and it is in everyone's interest to solve it fairly for the majority of both sides. Only when the majority of both sides see a fair solution in front of them, can the extremists be tackled. A jewish homeland was supposed to provide guaranteed security for the Jewish people - this is clearly not the case yet. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Sep 30 2003, 06:48 AM Post #24 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
When I posted my last question to you, I thought you might actually know the specific body of information used to create the UN Resolution 181. Obviously there are thousands, if not millions, of articles on the issue and the chances of Somerled and I reading the exact same materials is slight. Therefore, it wouldn't be a case of the materials being confusing - just that different materials were accessed. I would have been glad to read the link you quoted from, but you didn't provide it. However, being someone of an open mind with an understanding of what is generally considered as "true", I see little point in even trying to determine who has the more "right" on their side. (Which is not to say that I don't have an opinion with back-up source material as to who is actually is "more" right.) This situation is what it is TODAY. One side of the issue historically has allowed full rights to its citizens from the opposite side. One side had negotiated with nations of the opposite side returning to them miles of oil-rich land (although their land is oil poor) in exchange for the promise to not attack them. That country, who has honored their word and not attacked, has had decades of good relations with the first. The other side refuse to acknowledge the existence of the other - to the extent special maps are made so that the name of the country doesn't appear. That side will keep its own people refugee camps for decades rather than give up their political impact. The other side will kill women and children without warning on crowded busses. Neither side is without fault - but, to date, only one side has been willing to negotitate. Israel has demonstrated that it is willing to give back land to those who will live in peace with them. The Palestinian leadership (as opposed to the people) will settle for nothing less than the end of the state of Israel, IMO, your disagreement is still with the UN and not Israel. The UN is responsible for the resolution that you disagree with so vehemently. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Sep 30 2003, 07:55 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
You might blame the government of Great Britain a bit also.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Sep 30 2003, 08:53 AM Post #26 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Some Orthodox Jews were against the formation, not because of the people living there, but because thier religious belief is that Israel would be restored in the time of the Messiah. As the Messiah has not yet come they were (and some still are) against it. Once again you are using a confrontational style of asking your question that suggests you already know the answer. Try asking why they were against it next time instead of giving a made up and inaccurate reason.
Number one, you asked for the historical evidence, I gave it to you, I personally never used the argument of a historical claim in any of our discussions. Number two, the jewish people did not ask the "majority" to disappear. As already stated the people left because thier own leaders told them to leave temporarily until they drove the Jews into the sea. They listened to thier leaders and lost. And I might add that Jordan has taken more of the land given to them by the original UN partition then Israel has. You can argue till the cows come home that this does not make any sense to you, but that does not negate the actual fact that it happened. As Wichita pointed out, the Jews are there now. If you refute the Jews historical claim to the land then you must also refute the Palestinian historical claim. What stands now is what should be dealt with. Should New Zealand be given back to the aboriginals? Should the United States be given back to the Native Peoples. I give these examples because the current inhabitants have not been there thousands of years but only a short time, relatively speaking. Have you ever been to Israel? I have and it is an amazing country. It is a country both historical and modern. All of the modern has been built by the Jews. They took a land which was desert and turned it into an oasis. The Arabs within Israel are full participants in government and have full legal rights. Left on thier own 60 years ago I can guarantee that the Arabs would have done nothing to build the modern country that exsists today. The Jews needed somewhere to go after World War II. They chose to go to thier ancestral homeland. They colonized in a very modern way, no different from the English colonizing North America only a couple of hundred years earlier, except that the English did not need permission from the UN to colonize America, Australia and New Zealand.
I do not dispute this. I actually believe that the Palestinians should have a homeland but the cost should not be the destruction of Israel. As Wichita pointed out the Israelis have historically (in the last 60 years) been much more willing then the Palestinians to negotiate. There is not much that can be done to restore balance if one side is unwilling to budge. And Jordan should be providing the land that it stole, rather then only focusing on the land that Israel won in wars they were fighting in defence. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Sep 30 2003, 08:58 PM Post #27 |
|
Lieutenant
|
this is a very good point - and, to me, reinforces the fact that, as ANOVA stated, Israel could only have been formed by force. As you have stated, the Maori people in NZ were the original people of NZ and some of their lands were taken illegally by the govt and some settlers. This illegal snatching of the land was only done 60 - 100 years ago and there are some NZ'ers who still have a problem with giving either land or compensation back to the Maori people, becuase, like in Israel, the "snatchers" of the Maori land developed it, made it into something more financially viable - something that was not that important to the Maori people, and besides, it so long ago now (60 years), why bother ?? Maori had different values to the colonists who came here; for Maori people, land is land - it is where their ancestors lived, worked and are buried. The Maori people have a saying something like "I am the land and the land is me" ie: they are one and inseparable. It is simply not a priority to make money out of land as it is for more western type civilisations. It is sufficient simply to "have" the land, to preserve it, to pass it on to future generations. It is not important how much money can be generated from the land. Anyway, many ("white") people in NZ have problems giving land or compensation to the Maori people because, they say, "look, it is 100 years since some of this land was taken, things have moved on, colonists have developed the land and have, in some cases, lived onthe land for generations themselves now; it's just too late to change now" We have had problems in NZ creating a FAIR and EQUITABLE settlement for both sides after the land was settled for only 60 - 100 years. IN PALESTINE / ISRAEL, THE ARABS HAD BEEN LIVING ON THE LAND (in a clear majority) FOR 1000 YEARS - how on earth is it possible to create a settlement in those circumstances without the use of force ? How can the clock be turned back 1000 years ? I believe the Palestinians know that if they can not receive a fair and reasonalbe settlement in our life times, then they know history will simply forget them and their chance will be lost forever. After watching our progress here on a similar issue, I simply can't see how any rational person could say that the current situation of land occupation in Palestine is in ANY way fair or reasonable. Anyway, yes after my last post - i forgot to put up the UN link, here it is - http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee35...33;OpenDocument PS : I am very proud of the way NZ has negotiated a very tricky path to completing a fair and reasonable settlement for our land issues - there will always be extremists on both sides, but the majority of us believe that some compensation is justified. TO date, nearly $1 billion worth of land and assets have ben returned to Maori - which is quite a bit for a small country like ours. And although things have gotten heated at times, there has never been any violence. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Sep 30 2003, 09:29 PM Post #28 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
How do you make progress when one side is unwilling to budge??? That is the problem in Israel. The Maori people were able to accept compensation without destroying New Zealand. The Palestinians are unwilling to accept anything short of the destruction of Israel. And you seem to keep avoiding the issue of Jordan. Why must Israel do all the compensating when Jordan stole much more from the Palestinians? There are no UN resolutions giving any of the land to Jordan, yet that is where much of it is today. Do you deny that Jordan should bear a major part of the burden of compensating the Palestinians? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Sep 30 2003, 09:46 PM Post #29 |
|
Lieutenant
|
I myself, don't believe that ALL, or even MOST Palestinian people want the destruction of Israel. Sure, the extremists do, the people who are blowing themselves up - but the number of people willing to blow themselves up is very tiny part of the whole. Which is the danger - the people blowing themselves up is CURRENTLY a very low number but it is slowly rising and encompassing a slowly growing section of the reasonable majority of Palestinians eg: younger people, women, educated people have become suicide bombers of late. I beleive that most Palestinains are fair and reasonable, just like most Irish people are or most Maori people are. A FAIR and REASONABLE settlement must be reached BEFORE the reasonable majority of Palestinains start down this road. I also have to say that from where I look from, it is the Israelis who find compromise difficult and who deliberately imflame the situation. Nothing better demonstrates this than the issue of settlement building and now "the wall" which even President Bush - to his credit - has labelled "a problem". In todays news, the Israelis - knowing Bush has a problem with "the wall" - are only going to build "half" of the last stage, to hopefully defuse American concern. Later of course, when some other world problem arises to deflect attention away from them, the Israelis will build the second and final half of the wall, right to the coast. the wall has been labelled as a "security" fence by the Israelis and nothing to do with boundary issues, but they know, that once built, it will stay built and help define final boundaries, which would otherwise perhaps be somewhere else more favourable to the Palestinains. once a settlement is reached in the future, do you really expect this monstous "berlin wall" to be taken down, so fair and reasonable boundaries can be drawn ??? On the Jordan issue, I have read that the land taken by Jordan was done so, after a deal was forged between Ben - Gurion and the Jordan leader of the day, immediatley prior to Israel being proclaimed. Which doesn't reflect well on the Jordanians (or the Jews) and may explain the later generousity of King Hussein towards the Palestinian people. Whilst it would be nice if Jordan might be involved in some sort of deal, i think this less of a priority because - Thousands of Palestinians fled to Jordan over the years anyway and were given rudimentary care by King Hussein; there are now thousands of palestinians - who fled Palestine - with Jordanian citizenship. I don't believe any of the sacred Arab sites are on the land which is now Jordan; most importantly, Jordan is still a VERY poor country and relies heavily upon foreign aid. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Sep 30 2003, 10:15 PM Post #30 |
|
Lieutenant
|
(I still can't work out how to quote in more than one segment at a time) so do you think PERSONALLY that the "historical link" claim is valid then ?? I just assumed you did - sorry. your second statement is exactly the same as what might have been said 60 years ago by the Palestinians....... "we do agree that the jewish people should have a homeland, but the cost should not be the destruction of Palestine". HERE, TODAY, NOW........Palestine has been destroyed. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |





2:30 PM Jul 11