It certainly is like all your sources, dont expect to find truth in Palestinian funded sites - they send their children to bomb themselves on others so lying is certainly part of game, here is the real qoute in full and not out of context propaganda: Herzl's June 12, 1895 diary entry Thus, Herzl spoke of trying to move out poor inhabitants by finding them employment in other countries, and he spoke of the benefits that he believed locals would receive. He also indicated that those who could not be convinced to sell their land could simply stay - no sense talking about that if he planned a cavelry charge on the local Arabs right ? Sounds like another cut and paste qoute, what's the context of this "qoute" ? at what time up to Israelk indipendance in 1948 - were the Jews in any position to GIVE or TAKE the Arab rights ? in what way? the land was under Ottoman rule and then British rule. What's your problem here ? another Zionist continued Herzl dream of co-existance but it failed to practice? perhaps the Arab aggression to Jewish immigration was the cause ? when you cut qoutes - no one knows what the context is, that's why its called "propaganda". Do you consider UNSCOP report baised ? Balfur decleration ? 181 vote ?, diffrent ppl and diffrent committies have diffrent views, you keep clinging to the Arab side and ignore all the rest, clearly you are very baised to one side, the Jewish side is none existant to you, if you read other posts I made before you'd know I accept the Arab side of the story as well, I do not deny it nor reject it, YOU my dear cling to one side like a Sudani to a ship wreck on course to Europe. expand your mind and read otrher sources as well. "early 1921" was too late, the Arabs already launched their murderous raids on the Jews, ofc many saw no future for 2 nations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots You have no idea what you are talking about, you have no family here, never witnessed any of it and you relay soly on one source. I dont value your opinion even to get mad. lol, they never stopped being aggresive, but Im aware you are captured in a romantic story of your own making, like I said Im not pissed at you lol !! I just corrected you on that lie are kidding me ??? man this is soooo pathetic..... Fix your lies, no point reading your garbage when you lie, admit lying - and keep posting the same lie over and over again. The Plaesitinians have a good case if only they had real leaders and a way to control their fanatic - shame so many ignorant haters take thier side as appologists. oh well....
You lie nearly in every "qoute" you supply, you cut the qoutes and paste them together to present somthing that was never said nor intended, that's LYING.
Did you ever hear interviews of Ben Gurion from 1970? In such interviews he said in his own words something completely different. He said that "Palestine" is an invention of the Greeks, and that the Land of Israel is the land of the Jewish people, the Arabs does not belong to this place and so on. Here is a part of his interviews he provided to the Israeli media about the question: "Do you today recognize the existence of a Palestinian entity?": [video=youtube;siZnkL-ixlM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siZnkL-ixlM[/video] The subtitles are not much of professional ones, but this is the best video of Ben Gurion's inteview with English subtitles. All the rest have no such subtitles. Israel did offer compenstaions for such "refugees" to their lost lands, as Article 3 from the Land Acquisition (Validation Of Acts And Compensation) Law from 1953: Which means that the owners of an aqquired lands (= lands that Israel took) are entitled to compensation that will be fixed between the owner of the land and the Development Authority. Morevoer Article 3 stated that when the aqquired lands were used for agriculture and was the main source of livelihood of its owner, and he has no other land sufficient for his livelihood, such owner is obligated to demand from the Development Authority other property, either for ownership or for lease, which will be partly of full compensation: Source: http://www.israellawresourcecenter.or g/israellaws/fulltext/landacquisitionlaw.htm As far as I know, the Arabs Absentees didnt demand such things. The basic principles for which the world organization was established protects the rights that were granted exclusivly to the Jews in the document of the Mandate + the civil and political rights of the non-Jewish communities will be protected.
FYI...I was born 7 months before your state was reincarnated in 1948. Could you explain why Jews alone, among all nations, are entitled to territory their ancestors conquered thousands of years ago?
Zionist Aspirations in Palestine, 1920 http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/bookauth/zionism/mackay.htm
What's "entitled" ? the world recognized the exist, it didnt give something that was'nt there and it sure wouldnt give anything to the Jews if they wouldnt be there with a half made country, no one can GIVE indipendance - its a thing you take and others can recognize you for it.
What a ridiculous question. Must be contagious. Since when are Jews the only people with a nation? Start with that question. Secondly Jews, Muslims and Christians all at one point conquered portions of the Middle East. Christians have nations, Muslims have nations. Your question is ludicrous because it assumes Muslim nations have existed for thousands of years but a Jewish one has not. Can you at least make an effort to try just try understand that the majority of Muslim states today were artificial creations set up by France and Britain and to a lesser extent the US, Germany and Italy. Where do you think Iran and the Arab League of states came from? Do you want to come on this forum and tell us how much older than Israel Algeria is for example? Can you please try find out what it is you think you are an expert on before you come on this forum and ask questions that illustrate your complete lack of awareness of when certain Muslim states came into creation. Go on point to one Muslim state today that has been around a thousand years. One. Oy its painful. Born in 48 he says. Good God man go find out when the Arab league states were formed. - - - Updated - - - Then again he believes Muslim nations have been around for a thousand years. Which ones are anyone's guess. Man some days.
An article from the era that has the wrong impression that the Arabs owned the land and the Jews owe them a living, it has many amusing points like a Jewish state in the holy land will lead to a war with the Vatican and all Christians, y'know not every person that can write is worth a reading.
Why do you do this to yourself? Time to dissect ''In our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us.'' This is pretty common sense no? Zionists try to minimize the Arab opposition. He followed this quote up by saying ''But let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. I insist on the truth, not out of respect for scientific but political realities" Since you cannot seem to understand his quote, I'll put it in a in a form that you may understand. "We try to downplay the Arab position, but not let us forget the truth that tell political realities amongst ourselves" The acknowledgement of this truth leads to inevitable and serious conclusions regarding our work in Palestine… He continues to say this. let us not build on the hope the terrorist gangs will get tired. If some get tired, others will replace them. A people which fights against the usurpation of its land will not tire so easily... Here he clearly call Palestinians terrorists and he said that they wont get tired because they fight against the usurpation on their land. Now, here especially you can see. I don't know if you have a problem understanding English, but this is plain as day A people which fights against the usurpation of its land will not tire so easily. Now I would like to point you to the word usurp since I cannot trust your common sense Usurp - take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force: Now lets review the context so far "We try to minimize the Arab position, but not forget the truth amongst ourselves. A political reality that Palestinians wont get tired. A people who fight against colonialization will not tire easily" Are you following still? Or is understanding English too much for you? Now you may not understand this but, Usurpation of Land is called COLINIZATION. Lets continue, shall we? "The Palestinian Arabs are not alone. The Syrians are coming to help". What he said here is that Palestinians are not alone and that they will receive help. History tells that his prediction was true. "From our point of view, they are strangers; in the point of law they are foreigners; but to the Arabs, they are not foreigners at all … " Now why would he call the people who have lived on their land for hundreds of years foreigners? Is that question to hard for you to answer? Its because of their faulty idea that they have a holy claim to the land. so they call people who live on this land foreigners. This bleeds of Zionism doesn't it? But lets take a break here and look at relevant history. Just like your pal Ben, you are ignorant of history. Maybe I should live somewhere for 73 years and then think I have a holy right to the land. Zionists are something aren't they? But lets me continue to dissect your none-sense "The centre of the war is in Palestine, but its dimensions are much wider.When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves — this is only half the truth." Its looking more and more bleak for you my friend. "As regards our security and life we defend ourselves and our moral and physical position is not bad." Here he justifies his position because of his faulty Zionist ideals. He justified Usurpation of Land and here, he called such an action "not bad". 'We can face the gangs... and were we allowed to mobilize all our forces we would have no doubts about the outcome...'' Here he said that if they were to attack them, the outcome would be obvious. Now I would like you to remember this. because later, as soon as he had a good enough excuse, he launched an attack What happened after? History seemed to agree. His political problem was solved when Palestinians revolted. Here I show you more quotes from your pall Ben Imagine that. The same Zionist Rhetoric. But lets continue with the main dissection "But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict which is in its essence a political one." This is also common sense, but like I said, I cant trust you with it. He said that the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict. Earlier he said that Zionist can win easily in fighting. He went on to say that the real conflict is the political one. He had to attack at just the right time. And the constant backward story telling by Zionist like you illustrate this political conflict. He went on to say this "And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." "Militarily, it is we who are on the defensive who have the upper hand but in the political sphere they are superior." Now, there are obvious translation error here somewhere as this sentence is not proper. But let me try my best any. But before that, why would he say that they are on defensive? Just a few years earlier, Palestinian uprising was crushed with the help of the British gun. This part makes even less sense considering how easily Israel has won. Then as a though about it, it made sense. Russia! Well not Russia in particular. There were many countries included Russia who supported the partition in the hopes of gaining influence. All of them played into of how much Jews suffered during the last war. Virtually everyone played into this pity at this point. What happens if the poor Jews started to openly invade and slaughter? This was why he said that they are on defensive and that politically, they are superior. Here he brings up the political dilemma. And it would make sense, no? After all he JUST spoke about how Palestinian political position is superior. "The land, the villages, the mountains, the roads are in their hands.The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside.They defend bases which are theirs, which is easier than conquering new bases" Are you still there? Is this any different from what I said? To jog your memory I'll quote myself You must have failed critical comprehension my friend. Because, As I've show, EVERYTHING I SAID WAS TRUE Let me destroy more of your quotes.
Oh for heavens sake... Arabs have been in Palestine, Syria and the Levant for thousands of years before Islam.. Abraham and Moses had Arab wives.... Keturah and Zipporah.
Where's your entitlement for this... "Homes Demolished in Israel and Palestine "0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians, and over 28,000 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since 1967." http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stat/homes.html If your independence requires taking the independence of another, are you really independent?
"What a ridiculous question. Must be contagious. Since when are Jews the only people with a nation? Start with that question. "Secondly Jews, Muslims and Christians all at one point conquered portions of the Middle East. "Christians have nations, Muslims have nations. Your question is ludicrous because it assumes Muslim nations have existed for thousands of years but a Jewish one has not." http://glossary.usip.org/resource/state-versus-nation "State versus nation "A state, or country, is a sovereign, self-governing political entity, for example any state in the United Nations. (The term state is also used to refer to a division of a federal system, as in the United States.) "A nation is a group of people who feel bound by a common language, culture, religion, history, or ethnicity, such as the Kurds, who reside mostly in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, and the Basque, who inhabit parts of northern Spain and southern France. "A nation-state occurs when a nation and a state largely coincide, for example Egypt, Hungary, and Japan." But not in Israel where there are currently roughly equal numbers of Jews and Arabs living between the River and the sea, yet only Jews have a state.
From my last response to you, anyone can see that this is garbage. And I will show you why No facts, references, quotes, or numbers. I can conclude this to be your BASELESS OPINION. You know? Since its BASELESS and all. Clearly Theodor Herzl Journalist Theodor Herzl, born Benjamin Ze'ev Herzl, also known in Hebrew as חוֹזֵה הַמְדִינָה, Chozeh HaMedinah was an Austro-Hungarian journalist, playwright, political activist, and writer. He was one of the fathers of modern political Zionism. Herzl formed the World Zionist Organization ALL OF YOU POINTS HAVE BEEN RETAURDE, LETS SEE IF THIS TREND CONTINUES "When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us." "We must gently take away their property on the lands that was bought." Sounds like colonialization to me. ESPECIALLY IF PALESTINEANS WHO LIVED ON THIS LAND ARE KICKED OUT AND STRIPED OF ANY POLIYICAL FREEDOM. THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINE. Lets continue with more of you nonsense "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border" We shall expel them "by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, " I didn't see any evidence of this being actively done. Maybe you can provide some. "while denying it any employment in our country." Sound like cultural and ethnic oppression to me. "The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly" Colonizing and oppressing the local population must be done secretly, I agree. Maybe that's what he meant about being "gentle" It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. Coercion? Coercion - the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats And he said "harshest" What did you say about him again? He was clearly nice guy. And like you said . But how will they be able to stay if the "harshest" force and threats are used? Lets continue. You clearly know what you are talking about Yes, "harshest means of coercion" part clearly shows this Sounds like you, once again, don't know what you are talking about, and illustrated once more to everyone how clueless you are. But its no surprise, considering your history. It the rights were taken away from the lands that Zionist were buying "Towards the end of the 19th-century, the creation of the Zionist movement resulted in many European Jews immigrating to Palestine. Most land purchases between the late 1880s and the 1930s were located in the coastal plain area, including "Acre to the North and Rehovoth to the South, the Esdraelon (Jezreel) and Jordan Valleys and to the lesser extent in Galilee". The migration affected Palestine in many ways, including economically, socially, and politically" Zionist clearly showed that they wanted to co-exist. Kicking Palestinians out. Taking away their political rights and freedom. And then use the "harshest means of coercion". Perhaps if Jews didn't mistreat Palestinians so badly, taking their land and rights, and expelling them, there wont be any need for aggression. If someone came to America and took my home and land while saying "don't worry we'll find you a job in Egypt", I would shoot them dead. I guessing that's when they will ask especially nice and respectful by employing the "harshest means of coercion" And when you post idiot comments that have no fact, let alone base, you make yourself sound foolish, brainwashed, and ignorant. At least that's what your comment history shows. But let me explain to you why this comment is especial nonsensical. Unless you want to quote the ENTIRE CONVERSATION, you too will be cutting quotes. And you are doing it right now. Here, let me show to everyone how much of a hypocrite you are You see that "......" in there don't you? Furthermore, THATS NOT EVERYTHING HE SAID. Bigots will be bigots. Zionist certainty are. Hypocrites.. They may have different views, but those views don't change fact. Those facts are that Jews bough land and oppressed and or expelled Palestinians on that land. The lands that they had trouble getting, the employed "harshest means of coercion" As, shown by many quotes, Zionist were never planning to stick with the partition, this was made evident by history when it violated it's partition boundaries and took land even before Arabs could respond. Even before the partition, Israel illegally bought land in restricted areas. Then after they found their excuse, they started to commit atrocities, ethnic cleansing, and mass expulsion. They demolished many towns and conquered much of the land. then after the war was over, they refused to let civilians who fled in terror back in. THIS IS HYSTORIC FACT. It must be from the tensions that Israel created with their colonialization. But I already explained this. Lets look at the link you used In its wake, sheikhs of 82 villages round the city and Jaffa, claiming to represent 70% of the population, issued a document protesting the demonstrations against the Jews. This condemnation may have been procured with bribes. Notwithstanding the riots, the Palestinian Jewish community held elections for the Assembly of Representatives on 19 April 1920 among Jews everywhere in Palestine except Jerusalem, where they were delayed to 3 May. The riots also preceded the San Remo conference which was held from 19 to 26 April 1920 at which the fate of the Middle East was to be decided.[/quote] Now who was it that began to colonies Palestine? Sounds like they had a reason to riot, no? But that riot wasn't anything major. Only 5 Jews died and 4 Arabs. That's what happens when you establish yourself as a ruling body, that's takes away the natives land, freedom, and or expel them. Well at least I know more than you. And I've shown this over and over again. All of your argument have been either baseless opinion, Nonsense, or both. You're right Israel never stopped being aggressive. You do know which comment you replied to don't you? And you replied that the aggression never stopped. You are right about that. HAHAHA. You are a smart cookie aren't you? I just showed that you reading comprehension skills SUCK. Oh, you really showed me. Hehe. Some people..... What lie did I tell pray tell? With your posts, You have shown over and over again...Well lets say that if someone said the things that you have, Id call them a clueless, ignorant bigot who's reading comprehension suck and who supports ethnic cleansing and colonialization, while justifying it these with faulty, misguided ideals, so much so that you have become blind. And I think I did a good job of showing this to everyone. Otherwise Id call you a liar Please come back some other time. Palestinians do have a good cause and if someone came to America and did to it what Israel has done to Palestine and its people, then I would go around killing them too. If you take my land, my right, and my ability to determine my future, what future is there? I would fight for my future and I'm sure many Americans will too
Colonizing, Massacring entire towns, bulldozing villages, expelling over 700,000 people and refuse to allow them to return. Attack them again in 67 and lie about it. Continue to demolish homes and apartments, killing anyone who resists, call those resisting terrorists, making Gaza uninhabitable. Continue to deprive them of their right. All it took was taxation without representation for America. I wonder how they will respond to this treatment? I'm only saying this to illustrate that fighting against aggressive colonialization is normal and it should happen. Indians have fought, though they lost in the end resisted too. And just like America, you, a colonist call them savages and fanatic. Isn't that Ironic? Don't you learn from history?
And yet Gilos answered it sensibly, so maybe it is just you. Perhaps it is easier to be arrogant when the repercussions are not felt in places like Canada, easy to talk tough when someone is a coward who will not get involved. Better to be circumspect when you actually live there as Gilos does.
He live there as a colonist. I'm sure that the early Americans colonist would have said the same about the Indians then. Calling them savers because they raided their towns. But now we know better. History has shown that all the Indians were trying to do was defend their land in anyway they could. They worked with the French if they had to, they worked with the British if they had to, they even worked with Americans who continued to decimate their population.
Don't attempt to make points completely unrelated to my answers. I cannot stand (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ankers who exploit others.
They are completely related. Zionists are colonist and Palestinians, (who have lived there for hundreds of years) Are the Natives Maybe the English should start colonising Wales and oppressing them, while taking away your right to self determine simply because they[english] ruled it once. They should demolish your homes, Massacred towns, as well as demolish them. They should scatter you to the wind and refuse you employment. They should for a military blockade especially where you live, until the area that you live becomes uninhabitable wasteland like Gaza. Then when you try to resist, they should call you terrorists by doing so. This is after all, everything that Zionists have done to Palestine. Calling Palestinian terrorists is the same as calling Native Americans terrorists They both resorted to similar meathods.
Let's see... Throwing rocks warrants 1 air strike.... stabbings warrant 3.... Suicide bomber... hmm think they'll just have to just level the place and free up more living space for the jews...
The question is who raised the stakes to make my or their Indipendance, like I said many times before - we only won the war they initiated (and you supported their right to so you also agree they initiated it)
Lots of words lots of BS that ignore history and reality even today, you cut and paste and scream, that's all. Facts are the Jews worked with the Arabs, Arabs immigrated to Palestine from Syria and Jordan to work over the Jews, fact is that no genocide and no ethnic cleansing - regardless of how you twist "qoutes" - happened during the Ottomans (That's Herzl era) and not during the British Mandate (Ben Gurion era), the Arab riots started during Mandate because of the immigration - not because of Herzl words and not because they were ethniclly cleanced - but because they feared it what MAY happen. The war started after 181 was voted, not after Ben Gurion speech, you try very hard to twist historical events but its all recorded, actions not just words - and Im not even qouting the Mufti.
The Palestinians don't require Israeli assistance if Israel will withdraw from the Palestinian territory and respect the rights of the Palestinians. Three of the problems, from what I've read, related to Israel is that: 1) Israel has constantly stolen water from the Palestinians for Israeli farming. Water is a regional resource not confined by national borders.; 2) Israel withholding Palestinian tax revenues; 3) The Israeli blockade of Palestine (predominately affecting Gaza). While the Palestinians may require international assistance to get on their feet this is overwhelmingly due to the oppression of Israel since 1967. Eliminate the occupation and oppression and allow the Palestinians to seek assistance from other nations, if/as required, without the oppression imposed by the Israel occupation. By analogy Israel depends upon US assistance but if the US cut off assistance Israel would still survive as a nation. The Palestinians can survive as a nation without any Israeli assistance.
You address this speech as if its the first "hello" to the Arabs the Zionists ever made , that speech was made in 1938, in 1936 the great Arab revolt happened and the boycott on the Jews, meaning no ports were open to them and the economy was in danger, it was pass talk at that point, it was obvious military conflict. 1938 was also a year after the Peel committee that was the forst official entity from the mandate that suggested trasfer and land swaps, the Arab gangs rejected and fought, that's what's Ben Gurion is talking about. The Arab opposition to Jewish immigration was known to all, their views were known to all and that's Ben Gurion reference, not that they are right but that they are right in their eyes and so will never stop fighting, he clearly states the Jewish point of view that you ignored 3 times already as if he never said that, only advocated on the Pal point of view - which is stupid and that's what I corrected you about several times. He didnt call ALL Palestinians terrorists - you try to pin modern political correctness issues which is stupid by itself - he named the Terror gangs - Terro gangs that's it. He didnt call the native Pal foreigners he called the the Syrians foreigners, English is your mother tongue so it most be something else.. That the man saw war as only possible outcome? I never questioned that, you simply lied when you You can live someplace for 5 years and own it.... I always said I see 2 sides to this fued, its you that's fiked just one one my dear. No you got that wrong, it means that the entire Jewish presence is regarded as Usurpation in the eyes of the Arabs, while the Jews of the day thought is was part of the Natzi propaganda that the Arabs became violent - he said its a constant that will not change because they regard all the land their own. They had excellent excuse to do it then but not the ability as long as the mandate remained. lol, tell me Fallen, what did the Arabs do in those 10 years you jumped all of the sudden ? huh? where there any Arabs at all and did they have a will of their own ? more propaganda, you first "fix" qoutes now you "fix" time lines. Imagine that. The same Zionist Rhetoric. But lets continue with the main dissection What?? they are politically supirior because they had more political influence with Syria, Jordan, Egypt and all other Arab countries that later joined the war, the political arena was over statehood not an affection to the Jewish ppl, Ben Gurion was a practical man he didnt care for affections - just cold hard truth if you didnt gather that much yourself, his objective was an indipendant state. Im here and ofc its diffrent you fixed it as if that is what Ben Gurion thinks about his own efforts and the Zionist efforts as whole while in truth and throu all his speech - and Ill remind you that parts about the Syrians and part that looked "bleak" to me (?) - he stated that how the Arabs view the Jews and that fact will not change because that is truth - in their eys, but not to ours or at least both views are right, depends how credit you give the man. You give Arab interpretation to Hebrew qoutes translated to English from a tourist point of view......yup.
