crumbbum

"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"

What is TARI? I don't mean necessarily to say it is invalid, but I am just not familiar with it. The Israeli "new historians" were just that- they rewrote Israeli history. They had a political agenda in their work, and it is not objective. These books can't be used as the only reference to Israeli history, as such.
"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!"

I don't know about broadcasts- I didn't say there were broadcasts in 1948. The events took place over a fairly long amount of time. The arabs in Palestine were still encouraged and intimidated to leave, being promised they could return to their homes once the Jews had all been killed. Like I said, some villagers, in militarily important locations, were attacked and driven out, but this was not the majority, only 33%. "Others left because they were scared"- they were, but this was more from rumors and fear deliberately sown by agents of the Mufti, and other arab leaders. The rumors of Israeli soldiers raping women, in particular, led many to flee, even though this never happened in any instance. These rumors were spread deliberately to terrify the Palestinian Arabs. Internation law does not protect the right of the Palestinians who fled, expecting to return when the Jews were annihilated. Those who were forced out by the Haganah, Palmach or Irgun should be reimbursed if they were expelled only because of their location. If the village was collaborating with the Arab armies, and the refugees had been partners and supporters of the war against Israel, then Israel owes them nothing. Repatriation, however, is unrealistic at this point, since again, there would have been no war had not the Arabs attacked, and therefore the responsibility of the refugees is on the heads of the Arab countries. As far as the speaker saying "deir yassin", they might have done that, I don't know, while evacuating some villages, so as not to have to drive the people out physically. The Jews needed these areas in order to defend themselves from the Arab armies, and this was a way to make taking the area easier, and reduced the chances of blooshed. BTW, please don't accuse me of "lies", I am not lying or trying to spread misinformation here. That is insulting and unnecessary.

"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?"

This isn't true. Arabs, with the exception of the Druze, do not serve in the IDF, for two reasons. One, it would be wrong to force them to do so, since they would be fighting against their own people, and two, because it would be a security risk for Israel, as a sizable percentage of Arab-Israelis sympathize with the Palestinians, and have in recent years become increasingly radicalized. With the exception of army service, Arab-Israelis have equal citizenship rights as Jews. The lesser quality of some of their public services is the result, as I said before, of large families and failed tax payments. Economically, Arabs and Jews are in the same playing field, when the size of families, etc., is taken into account. A Jew with 7 kids does the same economically as an Arab with 7 kids- most Jewish Israelis, however, only have 2 or so children, and therefore have more diposable income. When the financial criteria is the same, they receive the same income for identical work. They are economically equal citizens. As far as bank loans, that is the banks' business, but I imagine that again it has to do with economic criteria, not racial. I was under the impression that Arab-Israelis do own land, but that it must be land ok'd by the government. This isn't surpising, given the reality of the region today. As far as education, Arab-Israelis have their own schools (I doubt arabs would enjoy Jewish history, etc.). They are funded by their own tax dollars, as are the Jewish schools. If the quality is lower, it's because they are underfunded, because of taxes not being paid by Israeli-Arabs. This isn't to say that Israel is some kind of utopian, perfect equality society- it's not. But for the most part, there is indeed at least economic and political equality. I do not mean to say that there aren't instances of discrimination in the country, I'm sure there are, just as there are everywhere, even in America, the most tolerant and diverse society on the planet. But Israeli-Arabs are by no means "2nd class citizens", and most of the claims against the Israeli government in this matter are unjustified, and can be disproven by studying the actual statistics, and economic data.


"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?"

The Arab rule was for approximately 800 years, not 1200. The land has changed hands many times. When it was under Muslim control, it was never more than an underpopulated, backwater province of the Ottoman Empire. Yes, in ancient times it was an important trading route for many kingdoms and empires. Of course it is a religious center, it is arguably the center of world religion. It housed the Jewish Temples- Jesus supposedly preached at the 2nd temple, and Muhammed originally viewed himself as a Jewish prophet. It is the origin point of the world's 3 largest monotheistic religions. Sharon is not a Russian. He is a Jew. He is a Jew whose family comes from Russia. What is your point? Jews today are the bloodline descendants of the Israelites, from the time when the Temples stood (the Western wall is a wall of the 2nd Temple). The Jews were forced, kicking and screaming from their land by the Romans, and they have remembered their homeland ever since. Also in Israel, there is of course the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. It was originally a church, but was converted by the Ottomans. Arafat, if any of his family is from within the Palestine mandate (though you haven't shown which family members, or any evidence of this), so what? Again, most arabs in the land in 1948 had only come in recent years seeking employment, starting in 1880 or so. There were only 250,000 arabs in the whole place prior to Jewish immigration. If Arafat comes from one of those families, then why was he born in Cairo? What were his parents doing in Egypt?



"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."

I am aware that the IDF closures, curfews, checkpoints, etc. disrupt the Palestinian economy. However, the Israelis have no choice but to do this when Palestinian terrorists from these territories are constantly attempting to attack Israelis. If the terror stopped there would be no IDF presence in Palestinian areas, and life could resume normally. It is the persistence of terrorism against civilians, which has never been abandoned by the Palestinians as a legitimate tactic that results in this. By not stopping the terrorism, and the elements that breed it withing Palestinian society, the Palestinians (and more specifically, the corrupt and greedy leadership) brings this upon themselves, leaving Israel with little choice.


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?"

The partition plan was laid out as such that the Jews were the majority in the areas that would have been the Jewish state, and Palestinian arabs the majority in the Arab sections. The arabs did not control 94% of the land in 1948, unless you are counting Jordan, which was also originally part of the Palestine Mandate.
I think that many of the arabs originally would have been happy to live in peace with the Jews- early on in Jewish settlement, there were many examples of coexistence, that drastically improved living conditions for the Arabs, and was mutually appreciated and beneficial to both parties. As I said before, there were Arab leaders, especially the Mufti, who, seeking power for themselves, worked tirelessly to make co-existence impossible, by organizing attacks on Jews, by bullying and threatening Palestinian arabs who "collaborated" with Jews or sold them land, and by speading fear and hatred amongst the mostly poor and illiterate arab population. Then, later, under the shadow of the powerful arab countries, the state, and coexistence, was also rejected. The arab fellaheen had little say in the matter, as loyalty to their people was demanded of them. Besides, the Arabs announced that they would declare war even before the Partition Plan was ratified.

Anyway, this is probably my last post for awhile, since I'm going on a trip. Thank you for challenging me, and giving me the chance to debate with you. I've found it very interesting and stimulating. I might be able to post again, maybe once more, but no guarantees.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.