Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict
www.cactus48.com ^ | 2000 | Jews for Justice

Posted on 11/16/2001 1:16:15 PM PST by ExiledInTaiwan

Click here for the book: Origin of Conflict


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 581-599 next last
Comment #521 Removed by Moderator

To: Architect
1. In the 1880s, Zionists decided to carve a Jewish homeland out of Arab lands, displacing the inhabitants.
2. The inhabitants objected to this takeover, as they had a clear right to do so.
3. 700,000 of them wind up in refugee camps when said Jewish homeland is finally created over their objections.
4. More Palestinians wind up under occupation by the Zionists after 1967.
5. Israelis slowly strangle the rest of Palestine for the next 34 years.

Try this:

1. Jews were already living there in 1880.
2. They started buying more land (from those who were glad to sell it.)
3. Most of the land was uninhabitable and was owned by the Ottoman Empire, who lost it to the Brits.
4. More Jews and more Arabs started immigrating to the area as Jewish funds developed it. Both sides wanted it.
5. So the UN split it into two pieces.
6. The Arabs attacked the Jews and got their butts kicked again and again.
7. They say they want statehood but everytime it's offered, they attack again.

522 posted on 11/17/2001 3:21:03 PM PST by Anamensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: teenager
John McWhorter is at Berkeley and he's very sane. He wrote "Losing the Race."
523 posted on 11/17/2001 3:22:50 PM PST by Anamensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: Anamensis; Architect; equus
That sums it up point by point but Architect won't listen.
524 posted on 11/17/2001 3:25:29 PM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: Anamensis
knee-jerk sympathy for a perceived underdog fostered very much by a leftist public school background that taught me that the poor are automatically morally entitled to whatever the rich have, and that those who have must have taken it all by force from those who have not.

Same happened to me. Just because the Palestinians are a bunch of poor and angry 3rd worlders does not make their cause right. And the Palestinian "issue" is really just part of the larger picture of Islam versus the Jews of Israel. Pallies should look within to solve their problems instead of blaming Jews.

The Palestinians do have some legitimate grievances. But from them they have fashioned a lot of propaganda that appeals to the liberalism and sense of fair play that Americans have.
525 posted on 11/17/2001 3:35:47 PM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: Architect
Jews for Justice

"But all these [different peoples who had come to Canaan] were additions, sprigs grafted onto the parent tree...And that parent tree was Canaanite...[The Arab invaders of the 7th century A.D.] made Moslem converts of the natives, settled down as residents, and intermarried with them, with the result that all are now so completely Arabized that we cannot tell where the Canaanites leave off and the Arabs begin." Illene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan."

FALSE. Canaanites disappear from history completely in the last millenium B.C. period. Their culture, social structures, genealogical continuity is lost.  Therefore, it is wholly gratuitous and simplistic to assert a tie between the Canaanites, the Israelites, Arabs, Greek and Latin Christians (non Arab) who came with the Roman and Byzantine conquests, etc. Moroever it is false to say Canaanite was the "parent tree". Indeed from the "Table of Nations" the Canaanites come from HAM and not SHEM which is the origin of the Arabs and Jews (Gen. 10:6). This sort of sloppy inference is  a small indication of what this group engages in.

"Palestine became a predominately Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century. Almost immediately thereafter its boundaries and its characteristics - including its name in Arabic, Filastin - became known to the entire Islamic world, as much for its fertility and beauty as for its religious significance

I'm amazed. Here "Jews for Justice" presumes to speak about Justice but instead they completely gloss over the utter devastation of the Arab Islamic Jihad over indigenous Christian (non-Arab) and Jewish communities. Only a bunch like this could turn the Jihad into a virtue. Here is how the Jihad started:

The greatest lie of the 20th and 21st century is the myth of the indigenous "Palestinians" (Arabs).  The Arab Islamics began the
rape, pillaging, massacres, forced conversions, head taxes, etc. with the prophet Mohammed, in the Arabian peninsula, as he
massacred 600-900 Jewish men in cold-blood and his men raping and enslaving the women and children (Banu Qurayza,
627). This Jihad would extend throughout the Arabian peninsula (where under the second caliph in 640 the Jews and Christians were expelled from the peninsula), North Africa, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Persia, Syria, Palestine, South Spain before finally being stopped at Narbonne (720) and Poitiers (732). In the space of 100 years the Arab Islamics had massacred, conquered, dhimmiized, pillaged, whole INDIGENOUS Christian (non Arab) and Jewish communities. Most of the time this would consist of massacring, enslaving, and ethnically cleansing whole Christian and Jewish populations. Bat Ye'or in, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam (1996), at pp. 44ff. describes this blight on long-standing Christian and Jewish communities:
 

      After the death of the Prophet, the caliph Abu Bakr organized the invasion of Syria which Mohammed had
     already envisaged. He gathered tribes from the Hijaz, Najd, and Yemen and advised Abu Ubayda, in charge of
     operations in the Golan (Palestine), to plunder the countryside but, due to a lack of adequate weaponry, to refrain
     from attacking towns.2 Consequently, the whole Gaza region up to Cesarea was sacked and devastated in the
     campaign of 634. Four thousand Jewish, Christian, and Samaritan peasants who defended their land were
     massacred. The villages of the Negev were pillaged by Amr b. al-As, while the Arabs overran the countryside,
     cut communications, and made roads perilous. Towns such as Jerusalem, Gaza, Jaffa, Cesarea, Nablus, and Beth
     Shean were isolated and closed their gates (note: these towns had a majority Jewish/Christian (non Arab)
     populations). In his  sermon on Christmas Day 634, the patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, lamented over the
     impossibility of going on pilgrimage to Bethlehem as was the custom, because the Christians were forcibly kept in
     Jerusalem:"not detained by tangible bonds, but chained and nailed by fear of the Saracens [Arab Islamics],"
     whose "savage, barbarous and bloody sword" kept them locked up in the town.3

      In Syria...Sophronius, in his sermon on the Day of Epiphany 636, bewailed the destruction of churches and
     monasteries, the sacked towns, the fields laid waste, the villages burned down by the nomads who were
     overrunning the country. In a letter the same year to Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, he mentions the ravages
     wrought by the Arabs.4 Thousands of people perished in 639, victims of the famine and plague that resulted from
     these destructions.....

      Country areas, particularly the plains and valleys populated with hamlets and villages, were ravaged by Bedouins
     who set fire to crops, massacred and carried off the peasantry and their cattle, and left nothing but ruins.
     Townspeople were in a different position. Protected by their walls, they could defend themselves or negotiate the
     conditions of their surrender on payment of tribute to the Bedouin chiefs....

      In fact, the record of the precise progress of the Arab conquests constituted a basic principle in the earliest
     stages of Muslim law, since it fixed not only the nature and taxation of the land, but also the legislation applicable
     to its indigenous inhabitants. Although some disparities appeared in respect of the towns, the majority of the
     villages fell into the category of conquest without a treaty. According to the strategy of jihad, the absence of a
     treaty allowed the massacre or enslavement of the conquered population and the division of their property....
      Helped by local Arab support---particularly active in the central region and the lower Euphrates---and by troop
     reinforcements sent from Arabia, Muslims extended their raids on the countryside and villages to the south and
     center of Iraq around Mada'in (Ctesiphon).......they invaded the Sawad (Babylonia), the villages near the Tigris
     and Euphrates....These raids were supported by Umar who sent reinforcements from Medina. The monasteries
     were pillaged, the monks killed, and Monophysite [Christian] Arabs massacred, enslaved, or Islamicized by
     force; in Elam the population was also decimated, and in Susa their notables were put to the sword....

       Palestine was laid waste and plundered.13 The Arabs moved into Cilicia, taking inhabitants with them into
     captivity. Mu'awiya sent Habib b. Maslama to Armenia....On his orders, the population of Euchaita [Jews and
     non-Arab, i.e., Armenian Christians] (on the river Halys) was put to the sword; those who escaped were all taken
     into slavery.14 According to the Armenian chroniclers, the Arabs, after they decimated the populations in Assyria
     and forced large numbers of people to embrace Islam, "entered the district of Daron [south-west of lake Van]
     which they sacked, shedding rivers of blood. They exacted tribute and forced the women and children to be
     handed over to them."15 In 642 they took the town of Dvin and annihilated the population [mainly Assyrian
     Christians] by the sword. Then "the Ishmaelites returned by the route whence they had come, carrying off in their
     wake a multitude of captives to the number of thirty-five thousand."16
       The following year, according to the same chronicler, the Arabs again invaded Armenia, "wreaking havoc, ruin,
     and slavery."17 ....

      In North Africa, the Arabs took thousands of captives and accumulated a large stock of booty...."the Muslims
     set to work overrunning and laying waste the open country."19 Tripoli was ransacked in 643; Carthage was
     entirely razed to the ground and most of its inhabitants were killed [majority Christian]. The Arabs put the
     Maghreb to fire and sword, and it took them more than a century to restore peace there by crushing the Berber
     resistance....

       The wars continued on land and sea with Mu'awiya's successors. Arab troops wrought havoc in Anatolia by
     numerous incursions;  churches were desecrated and burned down; all the inhabitants of Pergamum, Sardes, and
     other towns were led into captivity. The Greek towns of Gangres and Nicae were destroyed. Contemporary
     Christian chronicles mention entire regions ravaged, villages razed to the ground, towns burned, pillaged and
     destroyed, while entire populations were enslaved.

       As has been mentioned, town populations were not always spared. They often suffered massacre or slavery,
     always accompanied by deportations. This was the fate of the Christians and Jews of Aleppo, Antioch,
     Ctesiphon, Euchaita, Constantia, Pathos (Cyprus), Pergamum, Sardes, Germanicea (Marash), and
     Samosata---to cite but a few examples. In the course of the Umayyads' last attempt to take Constantinople
     (717), the Arab army commanded by Maslama carried out a pincer movement by land and sea and laid waste the
     whole region around the capital.

During the course of Islamic hegemony Bedouins and other Arabs would immigrate to these ethnically cleansed and pillaged, non Arab areas and the remaining indigenous populations would be put in a dhimmi state with periodic sacking, persecution and massacring of the remaining Christian and Jewish populations or these peoples would flee to other areas.





 

=====================================================

Come on puppy we're waiting for your response. That above response was just a snippet of the lies which "Jews for Justice" engages in.

526 posted on 11/17/2001 3:44:16 PM PST by Lent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: Anamensis
I appreciate your candid comments. Yeah, much of this "palestinian" sympathy has its origin in misdirected and misguided leftist idealism about the "poor" and "dispossessed".
527 posted on 11/17/2001 3:49:37 PM PST by Lent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: anapikoros
No, no sarcasm intended. I bookmarked the piece for reading sometime this weekend (I hope); I haven't read it through yet to see any slant. I will keep your analysis in mind though.
528 posted on 11/17/2001 4:33:30 PM PST by Donna Lee Nardo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

Comment #529 Removed by Moderator

To: Architect
"Moron."

Maybe. But you couldn't prove it by the posts on this thread.
Our "opponents" simply wave Israel's flag and accuse anyone that opposes them in any way to be anti-semitic.
That is the same debating method used on democratic underground.
We might be morons, but they are about 3 steps lower in intellegence as shown by their debating skills.
You have no room to be pointing fingers.

"You Amen-people are your own worst enemy."

I'm not quite sure what an "Amen-people" is supposed to be (your cutting-edge debating skills at work again),
but, as pointed out, YOU are your own worst enemy.
You viciously attack those that would be supporting you simply because they don't agree with you 100% on every detail.
You couldn't do a better job if you were Palestinians pretending to be pro-Israel.
You certainly show the same mindset.
530 posted on 11/18/2001 4:48:14 AM PST by freefly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
The Palestinians do have some legitimate grievances. But from them they have fashioned a lot of propaganda that appeals to the liberalism and sense of fair play that Americans have.

Yes. I understand that there are genuine issues with the water supply, it's limited and both sides need it. This needs to be hashed out in an equible manner. I'm also not entirely comfortable with the Golon Heights and would understand anyone making a case for Israel withdrawing from it, if only as a good will gesture. But those who want to blame Israel for everything, those who want it destroyed, those who want us to abandon it, are either mislead, IMO, or have a larger agenda which is anti-Semitic because it's anti-capitalist, therefore anti-USA and pro- collectivist, fascist, etc. And when you get to collective mindsets, Islam is a finger on the same hand as socialism, communism, and the like.

531 posted on 11/18/2001 6:51:25 AM PST by Anamensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: Anamensis
Golan is high strategic ground. Damascus is 12 miles from it and can be shelled and bombarded from the Golan. Golan is a major water source thus will never be given to Syria. Syria will always be an enemy just as all Muslim nations that are poor are. They will always blame Isael for their shortcomings and problems.

TRANSLATION:
Israel is under seige and always will be. Even if a Pallie state is created.

532 posted on 11/18/2001 7:01:48 AM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: freefly
Our "opponents" simply wave Israel's flag and accuse anyone that opposes them in any way to be anti-semitic.

That's not true at all. We have brought up several points that you folks simply fall silent on.

1. How can you say Jews stole the land when in fact they bought it? They paid money for it, and paid that money to the rightful owners.

2. Most of the land was never owned by private citizens. It was owned by the Ottoman Empire, who lost it to the Brits, who turned it over to the UN, who partitioned it into two states.

3. The Arabs rejected the offer of an Arab state and attacked Israel.

4. Even now, as plans for a Palestinian state limp forward, Muslims assassinate Israelis in an admitted attempt to derail this process.

5. Why do the Palestinian refugees prefer to be refugees in Israel instead of citizens in Jordan? Why did Jordan kick out the PLO? Because even Jordan disagreed with what they were doing.

These points and many others have not yet been addressed by you, equus, Patria One, John_11_25 (or whatever) etc. Why?

533 posted on 11/18/2001 7:02:04 AM PST by Anamensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
I see your point. Yeah, ultimately I think you are right. The Muslims just cannot stand for anyone to be free of their "embrace." Even the Koran states that Jews and Christians can live peacefully only under Muslim rule, following Muslim laws, paying extra taxes, and living as second-class citizens.

Personally I wish the Jews had made their homeland in New York. I'd rather have them here than Muslims: Judaism is inherently friendly to capitalism. Islam is not.

534 posted on 11/18/2001 7:05:40 AM PST by Anamensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: Anamensis
Even the Koran states that Jews and Christians can live peacefully only under Muslim rule, following Muslim laws, paying extra taxes, and living as second-class citizens.


Yes, Islam can accept Christians and Jews living in Muslim lands as long as they accept living as dhimmis. Islam cannot accept a Jewish nation in "their" Mideast. 43% of Israelis are Jews who were booted from Muslim nations. Jews lived as dhimmis and life was sometimes good and sometimes bad. Sometimes very bad. They were always reminded that they were second class

This 43% no longer lives as dhimmis. They live in a Jewsh nation and it makes the Muslims go crazy.
535 posted on 11/18/2001 7:24:17 AM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
it makes the Muslims go crazy.

Most of them didn't have far to go. LOL!

536 posted on 11/18/2001 7:34:57 AM PST by Anamensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: Anamensis
Thank you for a sensible response. It contrasts nicely with the rants. But I can see that you and I are talking about different things. You talk about the claims of Palestinians vs. the claims of Israelis. I refer to people (who happened to Palestinian Arabs) who were expelled from their homes by other people (who happened to be Israeli Jews). It's a question of the rights of individuals, you see.

1) If the land belongs to those who were there "first" then it undeniably belongs to the Jews.

I too am an atheist and I don't accept any 3000 year old claims of any kind by either side. While I have a sentimental attachment to my native Scotland, I have no claim to the place, even though my ancestors were expelled from there a mere 200 years ago. I would have no idea where to find my ancestral home and against who to claim a claim. As for Jews in Palestine, it is not even clear if these white Europeans have an ancestral home there. If they do, it is obvious that they have no idea on what piece of ground it might be found.

The Arabs lived in Palestine/Israel for many generations. They built houses, orchards, villages. It was their land. Many of the people whose land was stolen are still alive.

2) The Jews didn't steal the land, they bought it rightfully.

This statement is simply false. Most of Israel is land which was stolen from the Arabs. Less than 10% was actually paid for. And even this was obtained through the process of feudal clearances - ethnic cleansing. Jewish agencies would buy feudal holdings from the landlord and run the peasants off the land. The tension between Arab and Jew before partition was directly attributable to this process.

3) The Arabs were offered statehood in 1948. They rejected it.

The Arabs were told that their homeland would be partitioned. Jews represented one third of the population and owned about 7% of the land. Despite this, the Arabs were offered a state consisting of 43% of the area of Mandate Palestine. Wouldn't you reject this "offer"?

Then they attacked Israel.

In the months leading up to partition, Jewish terrorists cleared Arabs out of much of Palestine in a systematic attempt to obtain more of the land. When the British finally left, surrounding Arab states attacked. When the smoke finally cleared Israel consisted of 78% of the land and 700,000 Arabs were refugees. While there is fault on both sides, the facts are that the Arabs were offered a bad deal in the beginning and became refugees when they attempted to object.

Over the next 50 years, Israel has repeatedly ignored Arab attempts to reclaim the land stolen in 1948 or even to offer compensation. Unsurprisingly, this has caused some tension between Israelis and Arabs. In 1967, Israel used this tension as a pretext to invade and conquer the rest of Mandate Palestine. Since then, it has pursued a policy of state-supported colonization.

4) Not all Palestinians are refugees, about 1,000,000 have Israeli citizenship.

Who cares? Israeli treatment of those Arabs who have citizenship is decent (although not perfect). But the question is about the 4,000,000 who are refugees or who live under military rule.

5) Those who are refugees have as much claim to Jordanian citizenship (more really) than to Israeli. But they don't want it and Jordan doesn't want them. Why? Why would they rather be refugees in Israel than citizens in Jordan?

Wrong. The land they were expelled from was Isreal, not Jordan. The state which stole their land was Israel, not Jordan.

537 posted on 11/18/2001 8:17:02 AM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: freefly
I'm sorry. My comment was not directed towards you but rather towards Lent's incomprehensible rant in #515. I wanted to ping you to his words (since this comes from a reply to your post #84), not to accuse you of being a moron. Once again, I apologize.

When anamensis made an intelligent response in 516, I treated it with respect.

538 posted on 11/18/2001 8:31:13 AM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: Architect
This statement is simply false. Most of Israel is land which was stolen from the Arabs. Less than 10% was actually paid for. And even this was obtained through the process of feudal clearances - ethnic cleansing. Jewish agencies would buy feudal holdings from the landlord and run the peasants off the land. The tension between Arab and Jew before partition was directly attributable to this process.

Stop repeating this lie. Vast bulk of the land that Israel was made from was owned by the Ottomans then kept by the British under the Palestinian Mandate. Was not owned by landlords.

This is before the Arabs even attacked them in 1948 and there was the first Arab war on Israel.

539 posted on 11/18/2001 8:33:58 AM PST by dennisw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: Lent
Come on puppy we're waiting for your response.

If you can't live in the 21st century, try living in the 20th at least. OK? I have no idea whether your rant is true or not. I do know that it is totally irrelevant (and so consequently I didn't read it). Anyone who dredges up stuff from 1500 years ago has a serious problem getting his priorities straight.

540 posted on 11/18/2001 8:34:33 AM PST by Architect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 581-599 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson