Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

crumbbum · 06-17-2003, 11:45 PM

Sun-Tzu, your main complaint against me in this thread makes me laugh. When I say that a Palestinian is any Arab who lived for 2 years or more West of the Jordan, this is totally accurate. THIS WAS THE PALESTINE MANDATE (actually, it also included Jordan, but that was given to the arabs long before the 1948 war). What you refer to as "Palestine" was the British Palestine mandate. There was no country there, or autonomous political entity of any kind by the name of "Palestine" as you seem to imply. So to say that a "Palestinian", in reference to the Palestinian arabs, is descended from someone who lived two years or more West of the Jordan is the exact same thing as saying they lived in "Palestine". Because to be a Palestinian today, by the UN definition of a Palestinian that you conveniently posted, they must be descended from someone who lived in the land at least 2 years, and lost their job/property in the area in the 1948 war. Obviously no Arabs in Jordan lost their homes in the war, so one can conclude deductively that they must have been living West of the Jordan. So that said, what on earth are you talking about? "Palestine" wasn't a country, Sun-Tzu, it was a province, a territory, which the British controlled, and the Ottomans before them, and the crusaders, before them, and the Romans before them, and the Jews before the Romans. There was never a country there- in fact the only sovereign political entities that ever existed there were the ancient Jewish kingdoms, and the State of Israel today. I don't really understand what your problem was with my statement, or what your point is.

The territory of Palestine was extremely underpopulated until the mid-late 1800's, when Jewish immigration began. As the Jews came, they began developing the land, which created emplyment opportunities for the Arabs. There was a great deal of cooperation and co-existence early on. Arab immigration to the land spiked with the arrival of the Jews. The numbers don't lie, the UN numbers will clearly show this. This is what I have been saying- some of the Palestinian arabs are part of families that actually lived in the land for many generations, but the vast majority of the Palestinians are descended from Arabs from the surrounding countries who came to the area seeking employment, and most Palestinians in 1948 do cannot trace any family presence there past perhaps 2 generations. There is a reason the UN definition of a Palestinian is so liberal- most of them hadn't been there very long at all. This is also part of the reason why the 67% of them who fled the land before the war, without ever having seen an Israeli soldier, had few qualms about abandoning their homes and property. Though I don't know for sure, common sense would lead me to believe that the Palestinians who actualyl had significant roots in the land would be greater-represented among those who stayed(and subsequently became Israeli citizens). Among the 33% who were evacuated or expelled during the war by the Israelis, a very small minority I'm sure also have significant roots in the land. Those people deserve to be compensated for their loss. Perhaps the model used could be the way that reparatory payments were made by Germany to the children of Holocaust survivors (not to compare the two events, being evicted from a home cannot be compared to having genocide commited against you), but no one can realistically expect the State of Israel to repatriate their descendants now. Not only that, but it must also be remembered that there would never have been any refugees at all if the Arabs hadn't launched the war! Also, there have never been any reparations made to the 800,000 Jews who lost their homes, livelihoods and belongings when they fled to Israel. Maybe it would be just to just have both sides drop their claims. Not only is the idea of repatriation ridiculous and totally unprecedented, but the fact is that most Palestinians today are extremely hostile to Israel, and would never declare loyalty to the State of Israel. But the fact of the matter is that such individuals were a small minority then, and in terms of finding a solution for all of the Palestinians today, one must take into consideration that the vast majority are not descended from families with significant ties to the land. Most are descended from Arab migrant workers who came seeking employment not long before 1948. They came from Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. The "Palestinians" never identified themselves as a distinct nation until after the 1967 war (under the PLOs tutillage). So what is the purpose of their nationhood, if it isn't historically accurate?(I am sure that the Palestinians today very much consider themselves PALESTINIANS first and foremost, just like most believe that there was a glorious country of "Palestine" that was stolen from them. Let's remember that they are living in a controlled autocratic society, where the government controls not only the schools, but all forms of media. There is no free speech, so it is easy to indoctrinate the public with propaganda over time, as is done in most arab countries.

"You took my link to the ZOA out of context- I was referring you to a video that was hosted on that site of a lynching in Ramallah. I wasn't trying to get you to check ou the site itself because I know you wouldn't take it seriosuly."
"No I didn’t. For one I told you I had that video (Arafats war rallies). I was stating everything I saw you putting as a source was 100% pro-Zionist, it was the same point I was making now. How am I taking that out of context?"

The clip I wanted you to see was that of the lynching of two Israeli reservists who got lost and accidentally wandered into Ramallah. How is it in any way relevant if the site hosting the video is "100% pro-zionist"? Does this change the video itself? I just wanted you to see the footage, which was shot by an italian journalist. It was about halfway through the movie I linked to. I don't care if you read the site or watch the rest of the video. It happened to be the only place I could find the video. And anyway, facts are facts. It doesn't matter what the perspective of the presenter is if they are providing facts- they might be interpreting them a certain way, but if it is accurate what does it matter where it comes from? In this case, the clip is the clip, it doesn't matter where it is hosted! For heaven's sake.

As far as my being against a Palestinian state West of the Jordan, I am indeed against it. I wouldn't be if it would lead to peace. When I say that I might support such a thing, this means that I would support it if the Palestinians truly wanted to live in peace, and that that would end the conflict, and that making 2 states in that land was, in reality, possible. Since none of these things are true in the current reality, I am against it. I would never advocate expelling anyone if I thought there was some better way to end the bloodshed and find a solution for both peoples. And also, when I say "expell" I mean, in reality, rehabilitating them as well. The world should help them set up a new state in a place where it won't lead to war, or bring back to the region the nightmare of the Arab countries themselves thinking they can destroy Israel(which, as a result of all the "peace" processes, is already starting to be resurrected, and has been obviously among the Palestinians (hence the last 2-3 years of such terrorism). Until Arab rejectionism of the State of Israel has ended, and EVERYONE TRULY wants peace, not just concessions in order to weaken Israel, or a State with which to attack ISrael, any more unilateral Israeli concessions, world talk of a Palestinian state West of the Jordan, and the like are only keeping the violence going, and stoking the fires of Arab hatred and rejectionism. There will be peace when the Arab world is ready to live in peace with the State of Israel, and to accept it's existence as a fact of life. Then all parties would be able to benefit from the economic cooperation and cultural, technological, agricultural, medical, (etc.) cooperation that would surely follow. So while in principle I wouldn't be against a Palestinian state, because of the intentions of their leadership and the indocrination of most of the Palestinians themselves with hatred and rejectionism, and also just because it's wrong considering the history of the conflict, that in fact it would be giving the "seal of approval" to a collection of lies and fallacies, I am against it now. If the truth were aired on all sides, and everyone really wanted peace, and if terror had truly been rejected and abandoned, and all dreams of destroying Israel forgotten- if the Palestinians wanted a state where they could pursue their own future for the sake of life, I would perhaps be supportive of such a state where it is being discussed now. But the current reality is so unbelievably far from that that there is no way that I in good conscience could ever support such a state.

With regard to "zionist figures" and my using Israeli numbers, I suggested with regard to that specific statistic, the numbers for Jewish immigration, that the Israeli figures would likely be the most accurate. This is because most of the Jewish immigration came about under the nose of the British. Refugees and Holocaust survivors were smuggled in in large numbers by the Haganah. Since no one else knew this was happening, or at least since they had no way of keeping track of it, it is likely that the Israelis themselves have the most accurate numbers for Jewish immigration in those years, since tget are the only ones who could possibly have accurate numbers. And anyway, why would they distort the numbers of their own immigrants, used in their own records and censuses? There is good reason that I would go with their numbers in that instance, that is just logic. No other source even has a chance of being accurate. Also, Israel is a 1st world country, with a serious university system, a free press(that is often very critical of the government), etc.- it is not a closed society where there are no watchdogs. If they were falsifying information, plenty of Israelis would protest (and you'd likely hear about it such allegations on the website you have posted from far-left Israelis. Anyway, my usage of the Israeli numbers was for that particular statistic. Also with regard to the Arabs who stayed during the war and became ISraeli citizens, I would be inclined to trust these numbers for the same reasons because they were drawn up by census of Israel's citizens! The numbers weren't drawn up for the sake of propaganda(which Israel has been terrible at), they were drawn up for the government's usage and records. The British numbers for the Jewish population pre-1948 are not so trustworthy because they were under a great deal of pressure from their Arab allies to prevent Jewish immigration, and this was the reason that they set up detention camps for Holocaust survivors who were trying to escape to Palestine (such as the ones at Cyprus). If any of the numbers in this situation are suspect, the British numbers are. They were under a lot of pressure, and it is likely that they intentionally UNDERestimated as much as possible the numbers of Jews.

And as far as the difference between Zionists and Jews, ALL Jews who are religious in any way (and all Jews were until less than 150 years ago) are Zionists. Ever since they were sent into exile by the Romans, Orthodox Jews prayed facing Jerusalem, 3x a day, and in their prayers constantly prayed for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and to be brought back to their home. So all religious Jews, and most secular Jews are Zionists. In fact, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said to a student of his that professed to be anti-zionist, "You are talking anti-semitism. Anti-zionism is anti-semitism."
What about the Holocaust survivors, who, after leaving the death camps as human skeletons, regained their health, and fled Europe to Palestine only to be handed a rifle, to defend against another war of annihilation- are you against them, Sun-Tzu? Can you honestly say that there shouldn't be a Jewish state? If you are in fact "anti-Zionist", then I don't think I want to continue this discussion. The need for a Jewish state is so overwhelmingly obvious that even the UN couldn't ignore it. And the right of Jews to live in Israel is also overwhelmingly obvious. The middle east has never been exclusively Arab, as many seem to think today. The assyrian greeks were not arab, the Israelites weren't arab, the Iranians aren't Arab. No one has a right to try to exterminate a people. I am so sick of the excuses made for racism and hate on the part of the Arabs, when such behavior would be unequivocally condemned if it happened here, or anywhere else.

Oh, by the way, did you read the news tonite? Palestinians shot up a car off the major Israeli highway. In it were two little girls and a little boy, being driven home by their grandfather from a Bat Mitzvah. The grandfather was wounded, as was the boy and a 5 year old girl. The 7 year old girl was killed. I suppose that girl had it coming, right Sun-Tzu? The Palestinians that shot her, they were "activists", out "protesting" right? Or maybe, as the people who are pushing the Road Map would put it, her murder is part of the "price of peace". The emperor wears no clothes, Sun-Tzu. I wish you could admit it to yourself.

06-17-2003, 11:45 PM	#73 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	Sun-Tzu, your main complaint against me in this thread makes me laugh. When I say that a Palestinian is any Arab who lived for 2 years or more West of the Jordan, this is totally accurate. THIS WAS THE PALESTINE MANDATE (actually, it also included Jordan, but that was given to the arabs long before the 1948 war). What you refer to as "Palestine" was the British Palestine mandate. There was no country there, or autonomous political entity of any kind by the name of "Palestine" as you seem to imply. So to say that a "Palestinian", in reference to the Palestinian arabs, is descended from someone who lived two years or more West of the Jordan is the exact same thing as saying they lived in "Palestine". Because to be a Palestinian today, by the UN definition of a Palestinian that you conveniently posted, they must be descended from someone who lived in the land at least 2 years, and lost their job/property in the area in the 1948 war. Obviously no Arabs in Jordan lost their homes in the war, so one can conclude deductively that they must have been living West of the Jordan. So that said, what on earth are you talking about? "Palestine" wasn't a country, Sun-Tzu, it was a province, a territory, which the British controlled, and the Ottomans before them, and the crusaders, before them, and the Romans before them, and the Jews before the Romans. There was never a country there- in fact the only sovereign political entities that ever existed there were the ancient Jewish kingdoms, and the State of Israel today. I don't really understand what your problem was with my statement, or what your point is. The territory of Palestine was extremely underpopulated until the mid-late 1800's, when Jewish immigration began. As the Jews came, they began developing the land, which created emplyment opportunities for the Arabs. There was a great deal of cooperation and co-existence early on. Arab immigration to the land spiked with the arrival of the Jews. The numbers don't lie, the UN numbers will clearly show this. This is what I have been saying- some of the Palestinian arabs are part of families that actually lived in the land for many generations, but the vast majority of the Palestinians are descended from Arabs from the surrounding countries who came to the area seeking employment, and most Palestinians in 1948 do cannot trace any family presence there past perhaps 2 generations. There is a reason the UN definition of a Palestinian is so liberal- most of them hadn't been there very long at all. This is also part of the reason why the 67% of them who fled the land before the war, without ever having seen an Israeli soldier, had few qualms about abandoning their homes and property. Though I don't know for sure, common sense would lead me to believe that the Palestinians who actualyl had significant roots in the land would be greater-represented among those who stayed(and subsequently became Israeli citizens). Among the 33% who were evacuated or expelled during the war by the Israelis, a very small minority I'm sure also have significant roots in the land. Those people deserve to be compensated for their loss. Perhaps the model used could be the way that reparatory payments were made by Germany to the children of Holocaust survivors (not to compare the two events, being evicted from a home cannot be compared to having genocide commited against you), but no one can realistically expect the State of Israel to repatriate their descendants now. Not only that, but it must also be remembered that there would never have been any refugees at all if the Arabs hadn't launched the war! Also, there have never been any reparations made to the 800,000 Jews who lost their homes, livelihoods and belongings when they fled to Israel. Maybe it would be just to just have both sides drop their claims. Not only is the idea of repatriation ridiculous and totally unprecedented, but the fact is that most Palestinians today are extremely hostile to Israel, and would never declare loyalty to the State of Israel. But the fact of the matter is that such individuals were a small minority then, and in terms of finding a solution for all of the Palestinians today, one must take into consideration that the vast majority are not descended from families with significant ties to the land. Most are descended from Arab migrant workers who came seeking employment not long before 1948. They came from Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. The "Palestinians" never identified themselves as a distinct nation until after the 1967 war (under the PLOs tutillage). So what is the purpose of their nationhood, if it isn't historically accurate?(I am sure that the Palestinians today very much consider themselves PALESTINIANS first and foremost, just like most believe that there was a glorious country of "Palestine" that was stolen from them. Let's remember that they are living in a controlled autocratic society, where the government controls not only the schools, but all forms of media. There is no free speech, so it is easy to indoctrinate the public with propaganda over time, as is done in most arab countries. "You took my link to the ZOA out of context- I was referring you to a video that was hosted on that site of a lynching in Ramallah. I wasn't trying to get you to check ou the site itself because I know you wouldn't take it seriosuly." "No I didn’t. For one I told you I had that video (Arafats war rallies). I was stating everything I saw you putting as a source was 100% pro-Zionist, it was the same point I was making now. How am I taking that out of context?" The clip I wanted you to see was that of the lynching of two Israeli reservists who got lost and accidentally wandered into Ramallah. How is it in any way relevant if the site hosting the video is "100% pro-zionist"? Does this change the video itself? I just wanted you to see the footage, which was shot by an italian journalist. It was about halfway through the movie I linked to. I don't care if you read the site or watch the rest of the video. It happened to be the only place I could find the video. And anyway, facts are facts. It doesn't matter what the perspective of the presenter is if they are providing facts- they might be interpreting them a certain way, but if it is accurate what does it matter where it comes from? In this case, the clip is the clip, it doesn't matter where it is hosted! For heaven's sake. As far as my being against a Palestinian state West of the Jordan, I am indeed against it. I wouldn't be if it would lead to peace. When I say that I might support such a thing, this means that I would support it if the Palestinians truly wanted to live in peace, and that that would end the conflict, and that making 2 states in that land was, in reality, possible. Since none of these things are true in the current reality, I am against it. I would never advocate expelling anyone if I thought there was some better way to end the bloodshed and find a solution for both peoples. And also, when I say "expell" I mean, in reality, rehabilitating them as well. The world should help them set up a new state in a place where it won't lead to war, or bring back to the region the nightmare of the Arab countries themselves thinking they can destroy Israel(which, as a result of all the "peace" processes, is already starting to be resurrected, and has been obviously among the Palestinians (hence the last 2-3 years of such terrorism). Until Arab rejectionism of the State of Israel has ended, and EVERYONE TRULY wants peace, not just concessions in order to weaken Israel, or a State with which to attack ISrael, any more unilateral Israeli concessions, world talk of a Palestinian state West of the Jordan, and the like are only keeping the violence going, and stoking the fires of Arab hatred and rejectionism. There will be peace when the Arab world is ready to live in peace with the State of Israel, and to accept it's existence as a fact of life. Then all parties would be able to benefit from the economic cooperation and cultural, technological, agricultural, medical, (etc.) cooperation that would surely follow. So while in principle I wouldn't be against a Palestinian state, because of the intentions of their leadership and the indocrination of most of the Palestinians themselves with hatred and rejectionism, and also just because it's wrong considering the history of the conflict, that in fact it would be giving the "seal of approval" to a collection of lies and fallacies, I am against it now. If the truth were aired on all sides, and everyone really wanted peace, and if terror had truly been rejected and abandoned, and all dreams of destroying Israel forgotten- if the Palestinians wanted a state where they could pursue their own future for the sake of life, I would perhaps be supportive of such a state where it is being discussed now. But the current reality is so unbelievably far from that that there is no way that I in good conscience could ever support such a state. With regard to "zionist figures" and my using Israeli numbers, I suggested with regard to that specific statistic, the numbers for Jewish immigration, that the Israeli figures would likely be the most accurate. This is because most of the Jewish immigration came about under the nose of the British. Refugees and Holocaust survivors were smuggled in in large numbers by the Haganah. Since no one else knew this was happening, or at least since they had no way of keeping track of it, it is likely that the Israelis themselves have the most accurate numbers for Jewish immigration in those years, since tget are the only ones who could possibly have accurate numbers. And anyway, why would they distort the numbers of their own immigrants, used in their own records and censuses? There is good reason that I would go with their numbers in that instance, that is just logic. No other source even has a chance of being accurate. Also, Israel is a 1st world country, with a serious university system, a free press(that is often very critical of the government), etc.- it is not a closed society where there are no watchdogs. If they were falsifying information, plenty of Israelis would protest (and you'd likely hear about it such allegations on the website you have posted from far-left Israelis. Anyway, my usage of the Israeli numbers was for that particular statistic. Also with regard to the Arabs who stayed during the war and became ISraeli citizens, I would be inclined to trust these numbers for the same reasons because they were drawn up by census of Israel's citizens! The numbers weren't drawn up for the sake of propaganda(which Israel has been terrible at), they were drawn up for the government's usage and records. The British numbers for the Jewish population pre-1948 are not so trustworthy because they were under a great deal of pressure from their Arab allies to prevent Jewish immigration, and this was the reason that they set up detention camps for Holocaust survivors who were trying to escape to Palestine (such as the ones at Cyprus). If any of the numbers in this situation are suspect, the British numbers are. They were under a lot of pressure, and it is likely that they intentionally UNDERestimated as much as possible the numbers of Jews. And as far as the difference between Zionists and Jews, ALL Jews who are religious in any way (and all Jews were until less than 150 years ago) are Zionists. Ever since they were sent into exile by the Romans, Orthodox Jews prayed facing Jerusalem, 3x a day, and in their prayers constantly prayed for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and to be brought back to their home. So all religious Jews, and most secular Jews are Zionists. In fact, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said to a student of his that professed to be anti-zionist, "You are talking anti-semitism. Anti-zionism is anti-semitism." What about the Holocaust survivors, who, after leaving the death camps as human skeletons, regained their health, and fled Europe to Palestine only to be handed a rifle, to defend against another war of annihilation- are you against them, Sun-Tzu? Can you honestly say that there shouldn't be a Jewish state? If you are in fact "anti-Zionist", then I don't think I want to continue this discussion. The need for a Jewish state is so overwhelmingly obvious that even the UN couldn't ignore it. And the right of Jews to live in Israel is also overwhelmingly obvious. The middle east has never been exclusively Arab, as many seem to think today. The assyrian greeks were not arab, the Israelites weren't arab, the Iranians aren't Arab. No one has a right to try to exterminate a people. I am so sick of the excuses made for racism and hate on the part of the Arabs, when such behavior would be unequivocally condemned if it happened here, or anywhere else. Oh, by the way, did you read the news tonite? Palestinians shot up a car off the major Israeli highway. In it were two little girls and a little boy, being driven home by their grandfather from a Bat Mitzvah. The grandfather was wounded, as was the boy and a 5 year old girl. The 7 year old girl was killed. I suppose that girl had it coming, right Sun-Tzu? The Palestinians that shot her, they were "activists", out "protesting" right? Or maybe, as the people who are pushing the Road Map would put it, her murder is part of the "price of peace". The emperor wears no clothes, Sun-Tzu. I wish you could admit it to yourself. __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.