|
Insane
|
Quote:
Originally posted by crumbbum
Like I said, fear was deliberately sown in these people by those in the arab world that wanted them to leave, since anyone staying made the arabs look bad. There was indeed a war going on, but a significant enough number of Arabs stayed in their homes to prove that except in the cases where they were forced to live (33%), they had the choice to stay and live in peace with their neighbors. Why Israeli citizens? Arab-Israelis make the most money, have the best standard of living and enjoy more political rights than in any country in the Arab world. (Turkey is one possible exception). Most Israeli arabs, in polls, would not want to live in the Palestinian state, were it to be created.
|
I really don't know why you're sticking to these lies. According to the TARI publication by Phyllis Bennis entitled, "Understanding the Palestnian-Israeli Conflict", she clearly states that a large number of Israeli academics, the "new historians", carefully researched and completely debunked that myth. There were no such broadcasts, ever. They fled because they were being attacked by the Haganah, Palmach and Irgun militias. Others left because they were scared and believed they would eventually come home because international law protects their right to do so. Soldiers would drive through Palestinian villages screaming through their loud-speakers, "Deir Yassin, Deir Yassin!".
Quote:
Those are the numbers, 250,000 arabs in the land before Jewish immigration. I don't know why more people weren't there- I would assume because it was so hard to live there, since there was rampant malaria and the ground was unfertile. It should be noted that the Israelis have always protected and respected the holy sites of other religions, even when it conflicted with their own (like the Temple mount). Israeli holy places, like Joseph's tomb in Nablus/Shechem, have been destroyed. The yeshiva and synagogue on the site of Joseph's tomb were burned to the ground, and a mosque built in its place. Then, more recently, the tomb itself was desecrated. Jerusalem had a majority of Jews before Jewish immigration began.
In every aspect of life, from education to health care, being an Arab is a hindrance to them in Israel.
Arabs in Israel receive the same health care as Jews. As far as education and other public services, the Arab population resembles in a lot of ways the Chareidim is Israel, having many children. Also, statistically Arab-Israelis have failed to pay their taxes as much as Jewish Israelis- as a direct result, the public services in Arab-Israeli areas are underfunded. I am not saying that there is perfect equality, but they are not 2nd class citizens.
|
Again I am confused. Israel has what are commonly referred to as "nationality rights". This concept in practice favours Jews over non-Jews in such areas as social services, the right to own land, access to bank loans and education, military service, and more. How can you not recognize this vast difference?
Quote:
First, there has been a constant Jewish presence in the land of Israel, but it was small. Most Jews never could have come. Israel is the Jewish homeland because it was where the Jewish kingdoms existed, and where the Jews were exiled from by the Romans. In the Jewish religion, the land was promised to them by G-d. But from a secular perspective, it was simply where they had been a nation. The land is filled with archaelogical evidence of the Jewish kingdoms there. Since the Jewish exile 1900 years ago, religious Jews have prayed facing the Land of Israel, and it is mentioned constantly throughout the Jewish liturgy. I am not saying anything from religious bias, these are just the facts of the matter. I never said that the Jewish religion is reason to expel a population. The only arabs that were expelled by Jews were expelled in 1948, for military purposes. It is important to note that no one would have been expelled if the Arabs hadn't declared war on Israel. There wouldn't have been any fighting, and no one would have been expelled. In fact, under the UN mandate, there would have been a Palestinian state then, which the Jews accepted.
About Arafat, he says he was born in Jerusalem because this is what he would like people to believe, as the founder of the PLO. He was born in Cairo. I don't know about his parents, but I know about his uncle, the Mufti. The Mufti, who I talked about in my last post, met with Hitler and Eichmann, and begged them to bring the"Final Solution" to Palestine. He was also responsible for fomenting hatred and fear in the Palestinian arabs, and for ruining co-existence. He was the head of the Fedayeen. (So that's where Arafat gets it....). He came to Jerusalem to live with his uncle as a boy. As far as his parents being Palestinian, again this means that originally they are from a surrounding country, I don't know for sure which one, although it is probably Egypt. Sharon is a Jew, descended from the Israelites, who were exiled from the land of Israel 1900 years ago.
|
Not even looking at the distant historical connection, are you really going to just ignore over 1200 years of direct Muslim rule? Are you so stubborn that you wont recgonize the fact that this area was a cultural and religious centre? That it was an important trading crossroad for several empires? That during this time it was an identifiable region within the larger empire, linked closely with what was then known as Greater Syria? How can you keep denying the existence of these people? My point about Sharon is that his family is Russian. It's ok to link him to a group of people "exiled" 1900 years ago, even if he probably has had no connection to an Israel since then, but you wont offer the same definiton to people that have been there for 1200 straight years? Arafat, like it or not, has family ties to Palestine that date back centuries. Sharon's background is Russian!! But you question Arafat's connection to the region?
Quote:
I agree completely. This is why they deserve new leadership not compromised by terror, monetary interest or a political agenda. The only time this development could have happened was after Oslo, when the Palestinians were granted autonomy. Arafat and the PA's corrupt leadership stole money from the people, crashed the Palestinian economy and ruined chances for peace and development. It can't happen as long as Israel has to carry out curfews and raids, etc. The terror needs to stop so that the Palestinians can have their lives back. Without an end of terrorism though, Israel has no choice but to defend it's citizens.
|
Again, according to this latest publication from TARI, the UN estimated that Palestinians lost between $2.4 and $3.2 billion dollars in income due to Israeli border closures from October 2000 to September 2001. Do you realise how much money that is to these people? Occupation of Palestinian cities was matched by a complete division of the West Bank into tiny cantons. Villages are cut off from each other, from main roads, and are sorrounded. Armed checkpoints, destruction of roads, huge berms created by tractors, all had the purpose of preventing Palestinians to move between territories. Truckloads of produce rotted in the sun at checkpoints, milk soured, and workers could not even get to their jobs. Palestinians are also dependant on Israel for permits to pretty much do anything. Most of the time, these permits remain unattainable.
Quote:
I'd like to end with one point about the Palestinian refugees- there would have been no refugees had there been no war. There would have been no war if the Arab countries hadn't collectively declared it. It is the fault of these countries not only for starting the war, but for urging and intimidating the Palestinian arabs to leave their homes when they didn't have to. There could have been a Palestinian state in 48, and no refugees at all. The primary responsibility for refugees expelled because of military necessity, by Israel in the course of the war, rests with the Arab countries that started the war. The same countries are guilty of ignoring the Palestinians humanitarian needs, and leaving them in refugee camps as a political weapon against Israel. This is a really sick exploitation of human suffering. The same countries also owe reparations to the Jews that were expelled. The reason it is unlikely that the few refugees who do have legitimate claims of disposesion will ever be able to return to their homes, is because it wasn't Israel's fault that they were expelled, it was the fault of the Arab countries, and it is unlikely that Israel will accept that responsibility. These people should, however, be monetarily reimbursed for their losses, and maybe even offered Israeli citizenship, if they were not enemies of the state.
|
Again, instead of reimbursement, what if these people want to go back to their homes instead? What if they want to accept their right to return home, a right the Israelis even conceded to so that they could achieve their statehood. The majority of Palestinians don't want to become Israelis just like they don't want to become Lebanese or Egyptian or Jordanian. Why must they?
At the time of the UN Partition Plan, Jews comprised just 30% of the population and owned only 6% of the land. The Resolution, however, would have given the Jews 55% of the land and the Arabs, who already controlled 94%, just 45%. The area desginated for the Jews contained 450,000 Palestinian Arabs. Does this seem like a just decision to you? Can you not see why they would have turned down such a concept? |