Abbas admits 1947 rejection of Jewish state a huge mistake

Yes the Arabs were Islamic Imperialists, however, the Muslims transferred the Caliphate from the Malmuks of Egypt who were Arab to the Ottomans in Istanbul (previously Constantinople until the Arabs conquered it from the Byzantines) who were Turkish rather than Arab.

How exactly do you think the lands of Christendom within the region came to be Arab exactly? It was through imperial conquest and Arabization.

They still had ethnic ties to the land which far surpasses that of the Arabs as proven by genetic testing.

And the Arabs first were given all of the land of the British Mandate of Palestine east of the Jordan river and then were offered another appx. 46% of the land of the mandate West of the Jordan river, the Jews who were by that time in the majority within the lands partitioned for a Jewish state were only given a fraction of the land of the original mandate but even that was to much for the Arabs. And again population demographics change all of the time through immigration, these were not some random immigrant foreigners in a foreign land they have had a cultural, historical, religious, and genetic tie to the land for more than 10,000 years.

lolz yes the Christian locals agreed to be conquered and either convert, become dhimma, or die.

These immigrants had ties to said land dating back thousands of years far exceeding that of the Arab invaders.

Arabs did not "move in there" they conquered the land through force of arms. You do not know your history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(637)

Furthermore; Arabization is cultural genocide of the peoples whom they conquered through force of arms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabization

Islam spread into the holy lands at the point of a sword any other assertion is pure historical revisionism.

Making up definitions as we go along now eh?

Regardless the Islamic Imperialists only obtained sovereignty over the Levant through the force of arms and when the Ottomans were defeated in WW1 the British obtained sovereignty over said lands but unlike the Ottomans they established independent and sovereign nation-states for the local populations along ethnic, cultural, and historic lines and yes this included a national homeland for the Jews on their ancestral lands.

And did it show that Jews were in the majority on the lands partitioned for the state of Israel?

lolz, are you honestly asserting that the Byzantines never built anything in the Levant? Prior to Jewish immigration and the establishment of the British Mandate the territory wasn't exactly a sprawling Metropolis anyways.

These were not illegal immigrants with 0 ties to the lands and again this so called "local population" consisted of migrant sharecroppers who did not own the land.

Oh really? And when did the Arab nationalists call for an independent Palestinian state in the mandate west of the Jordan river prior to 1967?

A) Bull(*)(*)(*)(*): "My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God." -- Mohandas Gandhi

The British divided it, the Muslims applied for U.N. recognition, and it was granted, it was never put to a popular vote because the Hindus would not have agreed willingly to hand over half of India to the Muslim occupiers.

B) And what of the partition of Kosovo against the wishes of the Serbian majority? Should that state be dissolved? Oh wait they're Muslim.

The Muslims were the imperial power before the British, the Jews had a continued presence on the lands for more than 10 thousand years and even Akshanazi Jews have genetic ties to the land dating that same 10 thousand years. And it sure as hell did matter to the Jews as the vied for the right to an independent state. And what's more, in the real world, sovereignty and ownership of land does matter not just as a matter of real politic but of international law as well.

 

Isn't it though? Considering that Hindus and Buddhists had a presence in India thousands of years before the Arab Islamic Imperialists began to conquer their lands.

That's what historians are for.

No that was just during the reign of the Arabs, however, the mass slaughter of Hindus continued under the Muslim Mughal dynasty who in turn were born out of the Timurid dynasty, until it was replaced by the British Raj.

Yes, yes I can:


During Islamic rule of the Indian sub-continent

The Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent led to widespread carnage because Muslims regarded the Hindus as infidels and therefore slaughtered and converted millions of Hindus. Will Durant argued in his 1935 book "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage" (page 459):

“ The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period. ”​

There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Muslims.

As Braudel put it: "The levies it had to pay were so crushing that one catastrophic harvest was enough to unleash famines and epidemics capable of killing a million people at a time. Appalling poverty was the constant counterpart of the conquerors' opulence."

The backward castes of Hinduism suffered worst. Monarchs (belonging to backward castes) such as Khusrau Bhangi Khan, Hemchandra and Garha-Katanga were knocked off their throne and executed. Backward caste saints like Namadeva[1] were arrested, while women like Kanhopatra were forced to commit suicide. Ghisadis have an “Urdu” title.[2]

Prof. K.S. Lal, suggests a calculation in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India which estimates that between the years 1000 AD and 1500 AD the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. Even those Hindus who converted to Islam were not immune from persecution, which was illustrated by the Muslim Caste System in India as established by Ziauddin al-Barani in the Fatawa-i Jahandari.[3] where they were regarded as "Ajlaf" caste and subjected to severe discrimination by the "Ashraf" castes.[4]

By Arabs

Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent began during the early 8th century, when the Umayyad governor of Damascus, Hajjaj responded to a casus belli provided by the kidnapping of Muslim women and treasures by pirates off the coast of Debal,[5] by mobilizing an expedition of 6,000 cavalry under Muhammad bin-Qasim in 712 CE. Records from the campaign recorded in the Chach Nama record temple demolitions, and mass executions of resisting Sindhi forces and the enslavement of their dependents. This action was particularly extensive in Debal, of which Qasim is reported to have been under orders to make an example of while freeing both the captured women and the prisoners of a previous failed expedition. Bin Qasim then enlisted the support of the local Jat, Meds and Bhutto tribes and began the process of subduing and conquering the countryside. The capture of towns was also usually accomplished by means of a treaty with a party from among his "enemy", who were then extended special privileges and material rewards.[6] However, his superior Hajjaj reportedly objected to his method by saying that it would make him look weak and advocated a more hardline military strategy:[7]

“ It appears from your letter that all the rules made by you for the comfort and convenience of your men are strictly in accordance with religious law. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the law is different from the one adopted by you, for you go on giving pardon to everybody, high or low, without any discretion between a friend and a foe. The great God says in the Koran [47.4]: "0 True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man. ”​

In a subsequent communication, Hajjaj reiterated that all able-bodied men were to be killed, and that their underage sons and daughters were to be imprisoned and retained as hostages. Qasim obeyed, and on his arrival at the town of Brahminabad massacred between 6,000 and 16,000 of the defending forces.[8] The historian, Upendra Thakur records the persecution of Hindus and Buddhists:

“ When Muhammad Kasim invaded Sind in 711 AD, Buddhism had no resistance to offer to their fire and steel. The rosary could not be a match for the sword and the terms Love and Peace had no meaning to them. They carried fire and sword wherever they went and obliterated all that came their way. Muhammad triumphantly marched into the country, conquering Debal, Sehwan, Nerun, Brahmanadabad, Alor and Multan one after the other in quick succession, and in less than a year and a half, the far-flung Hindu kingdom was crushed, the great civilization fell back and Sind entered the darkest period of its history. There was a fearful outbreak of religious bigotry in several places and temples were wantonly desecrated. At Debal, the Nairun and Aror temples were demolished and converted into mosques.[Resistors] were put to death and women made captives. The Jizya was exacted with special care.[Hindus] were required to feed Muslim travellers for three days and three nights.[9] ​

”



Timur himself recorded the invasions in his memoirs, collectively known as Tuzk-i-Timuri.[21] In them, he vividly described the massacre at Delhi:

In a short space of time all the people in the [Delhi] fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground....All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.

One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus,http://www.politicalforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3562573 who were his captives....on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and enemies of Islam at liberty...no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword.[22]​

According to Malfuzat-i-Timuri,[23] Timur targeted Hindus. In his own words, "Excepting the quarter of the saiyids, the 'ulama and the other Musalmans [sic], the whole city was sacked". In his descriptions of the Loni massacre he wrote, "..Next day I gave orders that the Musalman prisoners should be separated and saved."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

It's an absurd hypothetical with no basis in reality. Try a proper analogy with a basis in history and I'll answer the question.

It's this simple, it's not an analogous comparison, now if the Scots voted for an independent nations of Scotland I would support it, if Scots were dispersed through war and pogroms and the like from their native lands I would in fact support their return to their native lands if said lands were not under private ownership.

 

Indeed, so the arabs, every one of them, was an Arab imperialist, despite being under the rule of Ottoman empire.

Conquest and arabisation you say? By whom?
Go on, name any village or villager in the late 19th century, or 20th century who was responsible for this. Just one is all we ask.and thats twice ive asked you now.

If youve never set foot there, and have lived for generations elsewhere and dont have any family there. Then you dont have ethnic ties, all you have is an ethnic history of origin there.

Just as you as a likely American of british origin have nothing like the same ties to britiain as I have despite the fact that so many americans came from here.

The arabs could and still can name there successive grandfathers living there in the same village going back centuries. Only a few of the real palestinian jews could say the same.

Irrelevant. The arabs were an original majority all across the area. Population demographics do not change all the time and those ties only applied to those jews with a continual family presence there - most were in europe.

Leave out the anti arab bigotry. The same pattern of change was repeated all across the middle ages, it was normal practice everywhere.

They also moved in to settle. They also traded their way in. And the persians you refer to, what happened to them? Did they all leave? Did they all die?

Why are you lying to us?

From your own source;
Arab culture and language spread through trade with African states, conquest, and intermarriage of the non-Arab local population with the Arabs, in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Iraq and the Sudan.

Something wrong with referring to sovereignty as the power of violence?

Here you go;

Indeed, and the British to do this allowed and encouraged the shipping in of hundreds of thousands of jews whod never set foot and had no family there there from europe.

Not really, it showed the jews to be majority in only two districts ala 1946;
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story574.html.

and to be only 1% of the population of Bersheeba.

Well they probably built some churches, or rather got the locals to build it. To build things you need a working population of people with an interest in the area.

Prior to jewish immigration and the mandate palestine had thriving industries across the land and an increasing population. Everything you seen there, the roads, the towns, the ports were all built by the locals.

They had absolutely O ties to the land. All the they had was a cultural tradition that hailed from there. They had no family there, no houses there, no farms and no one they knew had been born there. All those real things were in fact in europe and elsewhere.

The arabs both owned, had tenure, farmed, traded, had children and ancestors they could easily name, they had graves. All on every single part you could name.

Throughout the 20s and 30s;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_a_Palestinian_state#Historical_proposals_and_events

Youll find that Ghandi was one of the few political factions struggling to keep the two lands together.

Their was no need for a popular vote because they all had representations in congress. The hindus didnt mind them going, they just wanted more land for themselves.
This is evident in the simple fact that the Indians did not them go out and seek extra territory forward of the partition line.

What majority? The serbs were a majority only in Serbia. The Kosovans had been there some 200 years, theyd built the place, farmed it etc etc.

Why do you continue to deceive? It didnt matter to the jews who was sovereign. How could they when they killed so many British and arab people when they didnt agree with the sovereign's policy?

And in the real world, when people object to the wishes of the imperial power, they resist. Sovereign or not.

 

Indeed its fascinating. But you said WTF? You must be kidding. So what point are you trying to make here?

The difference between you and I is that I dont mind if any of these people resist imperial exploits. You resent the fact that arabs do in palestine, even though none of had ever taken part in any imperial expeditions.

So you lied again. You didnt recall it. You think you read it somewhere.

Fascinating.

So now youre ready to admit that you want to make a direct comparison with the common barbarism of much much earlier ages to justify the 20th century events preceding from 70 years ago.

You even want to link in the religious element and tie it in with the ancient events not from the middle east but the indian sub-continent.

Much like trying to justify the mass slaughter of Russians by the Nazis because back in the middle ages an army of Cossacks may have pillaged and raped some germanic tribes.

Thats why you fail.

Whats absurd about it? You made the analogy yourself not me remember? Right here;

Try manning up and dealing with the question instead.

Ah you want now to pose the Scots as the jews correct?

So...today, if say england came along and forced us Scots living here to accept the immigration of hundreds of thousands of Scots onto our public parks despite our oppostion - youd be cheering for the english. Correct?

And another for you.

You live in the USA right? So tommorrow some Mexicans come along and say we used to have a community in your district thousands of years ago and ever since theres always been a few Mexicans families living there and about.

So now the Federal government has decided that they can come along and set up a new mexican state to redeem the land that youve been neglecting, and if you dont like it you can go to another state because after all, you originally came from europe anyway so who cares what you think.

Youd be surprised if anyone in your neighborhood objected to that would you Doctor?

 

I condemn Breivic, do you condemn Hamas. Hizbollah the Taliban and other groups which murderd far far more?

Nope.

 

I think we condemn all violence and all such related matters, I certainly do.

None of these groups escape condemnation, the difference between you and I is that so only condemn these groups.

 

Perhaps what Abbass means is that the Palestnian leadership recognizes the 1947 borders and by such underscores that he recognizes Israel's right to exist, something often cited as the fundamental obstacle to progress in reaching a peace settlement, but he also says that he objects to the post-1967 borders and wants them revised and altered.

 

Yeah, they want at a minimum all the territory captured by force of the Arab armies in 48. Rules against capturing territory by force applies only to jews.

 

Do you ever actually read posts?

Or do you interpret everything according to whether you can talk crap or have to sit on your hands because you have nothing sensible to say?

Which part of he objects to the post-1967 borders and wants them revised and altered. equates to they want at a minimum all the territory captured by force of the Arab armies in 48. Are the 1967 borders not the 1949 ones.....so the post-1967 would be the 1949 borders.or is that to convoluted for a simple American?

Makes one wonder if you have ever read any of the other myriads of posts on the myriads of threads dealing with Israel and Palestine.

 

There you have it directly from the Jew haters fingers; any questions?

 

How do you equate that with "Jew haters", I wonder...unless you are of the opinion that anyone who doesn't buy in to the Israeli conception of their biblical rights is a "Jew hater"? In which case, most of the world, (if not most of the World's governments, unfortunately), would deserve that somewhat pejorative description.

While moon is certainly more of a one state solution person than a two state one, I have never in any post he/she has made, read him/her as advocating the wholesale removal of Jews from Palestine....unlike many of your compatriots posting on here regarding the Palestinians.

The removal of Zionist Governments by the Israeli people as a useful option, perhaps...as so many of us think would be helpful.....because many of us feel the Zionist mindset is, at the very least, as detrimental to world peace as any excuse the West can cobble up, with Israeli help, to hammer Muslims if they live within a thousand or so miles of Israel.

The Jewish state bollox was dreamed up by Netanyahu as a method of derailing any prospect of peace negotiations......but, in the end..would a "Jewish" state make Israel any different from Iran...bar the ********s are Jews and not Muslim? I think not.

Before Netanyahu decided that, to schmooze the religious right which props him up as PM, he would insist on the "Jewish State" on the same lines as the "Islamic Republic of Afghanistan", the "Islamic Republic of Iran", the "Islamic Republic of Mauritania", and the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan"..it was only the non-Jewish Palestinians who were discriminated against.

However, since deciding, to be on the safe side, and not rely on the gullible thinking that Jew= Race because Israel says so, the decision to become more Jewish religion-wise, has expanded the list of those discriminated against to include secular Jews (who were those responsible for Israel in the first place) and non-white Jews who differ slightly in their interpretations of the Torah.

So it is not only Arabs who have problems with a state which is "Jewish" as an Islamic state is "Muslim" because, while touted as the only “democracy” in the Middle East, Israel does not offer its citizens the option of civil marriage.

The only marriages recognized as legal by the Jewish state are Orthodox Jewish marriages, and civil marriages performed outside Israel. While it does not prohibit interfaith and other religious marriages, Israel does not recognize them as legal unions.

I have, on another thread commented about the restrictions Israel places on Israeli Arabs regarding marriage and family life.........and I won't repeat that post here at the moment.......but the Orthodox monopoly over marriage and divorce violates Israel’s Declaration of Independence, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

To paraphrase George Orwell..... in Israel some Jews apparently are more equal than others. All, however, are more equal than the Palestinians on whose land they live

 

That's a silly misuse and abuse of the European Guilt Complex, considering that not all Israelis are Jews and considering that Holland and New York have no interest in becoming Jew-only nations. Are you really sure that you want to accuse the people living in New York of being Jew-haters simply because they don't want their State to become a Jew-only nation? You are playing the heavily misused and abused Holocaust card.

 

If you have a source for this sort of info I would much appreciate it. I have seen so many posts stating that all the people living in Israel have the same rights. Thanks

 

Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority rights in Israel

U.S. report highlights Israel’s religious freedoms violations


Will that do to be going on with?

 

Thanks. They are now bookmarked for a later read.

 

You SAY you condemn him only because its embarrassing to admit that both you and he share the same ideology. The only difference between him and you, is that he took your shared views to their logical conclusion. No, I don't condemn Hamas - a democratically-elected nationalist resistance movement - and neither do the governments' of the majority of the world. Hezzbollah are also a nationalist resistance movement and I have no reason to condemn them either on the same basis. The Taliban in the strictest sense means 'student', a propaganda term used to demonize those who are resisting the invasion of their country.

 

I share some things with him, I see third world immigration as a threat, and Islam as a backwards religion, quite a long way from killing 40ish innocents and bombing a public building...

 

I equate anyone who sides with Islamic terrorists and depots who argue for the destruction of the Jewish State as Jew haters. That is simply a fact; because you prefer your head buried in the sand to reality is not my problem, it is yours.

You might want to read the thread premise again because apparently you are having difficulty comprehending the FACT that Arabs only want ONE solution; the “final” solution to the Jewish problem. Anyone who supports such acts are themselves either anti-Semitic, or outright ignorant of the facts and realities.

Then you have not been paying very close attention. Do you think that those who support terrorist organizations who openly argue for the destruction of the Jewish State are not of the same mind?

As to your belief that individuals like Moon and the Arab Islamic terror groups who advocate the destruction of the Jewish State and have openly stated they are uninterested in a two state solution, I suggest that you pull your head from the sand and stop wallowing in delusional denial.

Then you would also advocate the removal of Islamic States as a useful option?

The only ones derailing any prospect of peace are the mindless ignorant Arabs and their supporters who speciously claim Jews are to blame for the Palestinians pathetic state and not themselves.

Once again to have such false and asinine arguments, one must pretend that the Arabs were not intent on annihilating the Jewish State on three separate occasions and that Anwar Sadat was not assassinated for settling with the Jews and working for peace.

The historic record is not a friend of Jew hating anti-Semites who wish to falsely portray the Jews as the problem and not the ignorance that constitutes Arab thinking. After all, Israel occupies less than 1% of the lands in the Middle East and even this is too much and the morons making such arguments cannot find a place to call Palestine in the other 99% of vast desert that encompasses the lands in the Middle East.

One has to be a simpleton, ignorant or a Jew hater to make such specious asinine arguments.

Once again if you wish to start a thread about Netanyahu, go for it; but it is completely off-topic for this thread which you so obviously have chosen to ignore.

See above…….

Start a thread about the injustices of the Jewish State; stop wandering off topic on this thread and address the topic.

See above……..

See above…….

I think you are attributing things to Orwell that he never stated based on the false web sites you seem to prefer to the facts. But here is something based on facts:

While Orwell was concerned that the Palestinian Arabs be treated fairly, he was equally concerned with fairness to Jews in general: writing in the spring of 1945 a long essay titled "Anti-semitism in Britain," for the "Contemporary Jewish Record," no less. Anti-semitism, Orwell warned, was "on the increase," and was "quite irrational and will not yield to arguments." He thought "the only useful approach" would be a psychological one, to discover "why" anti-semites could "swallow such absurdities on one particular subject while remaining sane on others." (pp 332-341, As I Please: 1943-1945.) In his magnum opus, Nineteen Eighty-Four, he showed the Party enlisting anti-semitic passions in the Two Minute Hates for Goldstein, their archetypal traitor.
http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/g/ge/george_orwell.htm

I am always amused at the hypocrisy of those who decry a Jewish State while having no issues with an Islamic State. Why do you think that is?

 

Your comments make little sense based on what I stated; but this is par for you.

Carry on.

 

Sorry to jump in here, but I'm seeing more insults being tossed around than an actual discussion...

 

Your first source is laughably biased; from the second report we glean this much:

The International Religious Freedom Report 2009 released Wednesday placed Israel in the section with countries "where violations of religious freedom have been noteworthy." Israel is in the same section as such countries as Afghanistan, China, Iran, Iraq and Sudan. Another section of the report highlights countries, some in the violators group, where positive developments have been seen; Israel does not appear in that category.

While Israel's Basic Law describes the country as a Jewish and democratic state, "Government policy continued to support the generally free practice of religion, although governmental and legal discrimination against non-Jews and non-Orthodox streams of Judaism continued," according to the report.

While this report is also laughably biased, my question to someone as biased as you and who appears so concerned with religious freedom is why you do not spend every waking moment denouncing nations like Iran, China and Sudan for the egregious treatment of religion and religious minorities.

Perhaps it is because they are not Jews? Meanwhile, the FACT remains that Israel constitutes less than 1% of the land mass of the Middle East and yet Arabs cannot find any room for compromise to find a homeland for these Palestinians in the other 99% of the land. How telling is that?

The mindless efforts of the Jew haters are infinite; those same individuals who see nothing wrong with the actions of Islamic terrorist groups an nation states like Iran but cannot stand the thought of Jews occupying less than 1% of the lands in the Middle East. How dare these people who have been the most discriminated race in the world and nearly wiped out in WWII to now expect the worlds collective post WWII guilt to allow them to occupy a tiny sliver of worthless desert in the Palestinian territories.

Carry on; I expect more mindless tomes from Jew haters that cannot fathom how absurd their claims are when illustrated by these simple facts. After all, why let facts get in the way of such ignorant anti-Semitic rants?

 

Would you like some cheese with your whine? Or did you want to debate facts and the substance of the thread?

 

Ah, pretty much how the neoZionists reacted to Goldstone after his report on their war crimes against Gazan civilians. Good chap, that Orwell.
You have read the Goldstein Report ?

 

You mean Goldstone don't you, or are all joos the same anyway?

 

Perhaps you could adapt to the term ' ***** ' from time to time, just to alleviate the repetition of your insults.