Israel Has Learned Well From The Nazis.

Your diatribes are getting more repulsive daily. What a fine example of humanity you must be...obsessed with paedophilia, calling perfectly decent people 'whores'. I'm betting you wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to say that to her parent's face. Absolutely disgusting is about as polite as I can be without voicing my real opinion of your attitude and getting a ban.

 

Life was pretty rough for a lot of Christians in the Byzantine Empire and a lot of cities, most notably Jerusalem, slammed their gates shut in the face of the Muslim armies that invaded the Levant. What that has to do with the date that the Muslim-Christian religious conflict began (7th Century CE) is anybody's guess...

 

Which I'm sure is why they accepted the partition plan of the UN and why at Taba they offered all of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank, and a Capital in East Jerusalem. It is the so called "Palestinians" who have rejected the two state solution at every turn.

 

False, there are appx. 15,143,912 Jews worldwide and Israel has a Jewish population of appx. 7.5 million so a little less than the entire worlds Jewish population resides in Israel and the vast majority of them speak Hebrew as do a substantial part of the population living outside of Israel especially amongst religious Jews.

Yiddish is a derivative of Hebrew it is written in the Hebrew alphabet and they spoke Hebrew as well.

Do you share with them a shared culture, history, and religion?

An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and/or an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.[1][2][3] The concept of ethnicity differs from the closely related term race in that "race" refers to grouping based mostly upon criteria that in the past have been presumed to be biological, while "ethnicity" also encompasses additional cultural factors.

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

I'm speaking of the people who built the first and only nation where Israel now stands, the only state ever to exist in Israel has been a Jewish state and the Jews have had an unbroken presence there for the last ten thousand years.

 

It is not illegal to bulldoze an illegally constructed home regardless they weren't bulldozing homes they were clearing weapons caches and smuggling tunnels, she was attempting to protect weapons caches and smuggling tunnels not homes, any assertion to the contrary is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing lie.

She was a stupid flag burning Hamas whore and she got what she deserved.

She was not an American she was a Hamas whore.

 

Palestinian Sentenced to Death for Selling a Home to Jews

 

As are you.

Nope that's the Islamic Imperialist swine who consider a pedophile to be the "perfect man".

She was a flag burning Hamas weapons cache and smuggling tunnel defending whore, she was only decent by people who also worship pedophiles and hope for the extermination of world Jewry.

Yes I would.

Sorry to insult your Hamas loving whore (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) slut (*)(*)(*)(*) who deserved to die. (*)(*)(*)(*) Rachel Corrie and her pedophile worshiping Islamic Imperialist fellow travelers.

 

Seconded.

A facility that is meant to be a place of discussion, has been infiltrated and turned into a place where someone can say they are glad that a bulldozer, on purpose, ran over an American girl in her prime, reversing over her to break her back, and this is meant to pass for 'debate'?

It is filth.

Plain the simple.

It hurts the forum and destoys honest debate.

Jack

 

Evidence your claims with supporting links.

Besides, if I steal your house, and confine you and your family to the cellar, are you meant to be grateful when I offer you crumbs?

 

I have found it best to simply ignore the most irrational of posters here (well, save for some instances ).

 

The proposed plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency.[3][4] The plan was rejected by leaders of the Arab community, including the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee,[3][5] who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League.

^ a b Best, Antony (2004). International history of the twentieth century and beyond.. London: Routledge. pp. 120. ISBN 0-4-5-20739.
^ Gilbert, Martin (199. Israel: A History. UK: Doubleday. pp. 149. ISBN 0-688-12362-7.
^ Lenczowski, George (1962). The Middle East in World Affairs. Cornell University Press. pp. 396. ISBN 62-16343.

A summary by Dennis Ross of what was offered and what took place at the Camp David and Taba negotiations:

1. Yasser Arafat presented no ideas at Camp David.

2. The Taba talks would have happened in late September if not for the outbreak of violence. Arafat knew the US was ready to make a proposal and thus promised to control the violence, but didn't. (I think he was hoping that he could leverage the violence into political gain.)

3. All of Gaza and a net of 97% of the West Bank were offered at Taba.

4. The West Bank area offered was contiguous, not "cantons".

5. The Jordan valley would be under Israeli patrol for only 6 years.

6. The Palestinians were offered a capital in eastern Jerusalem.

7. There would be a "Right of Return" to the nascent Palestinian state.

8. A $30 Billion fund to compensate refugees would be set up.

9. Taba was rushed due to Clinton's, not Barak's, end of term.

10. Members of the PA delegation thought Taba was the best they could hope to get and encouraged Arafat to accept it.

11. Arafat accepted everything he was given at Taba, but rejected everything he was supposed to give.

12. Arafat scuttled the Camp David offer. Arafat scuttled the Taba offer. Arafat scuttled the Mitchell plan. Arafat scuttled the Tenet plan. Arafat scuttled the Zinni plan.

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000555.html

Nothing was stolen, the Arabs now calling themselves Palestinians did not own the land they were migrant farm workers for absentee land lords, the land was either owned outright by Jews or was British Crown Land.

 

I do that.

I work on that basis that I come here to debate subject matters.

If someone is not prepared to do that, I will ask them to do it.

If they keep on with slurs and slander, I put them on ignore, since they do not dignify a response.

But as Zionist posters go, 'Doctor' is not your usual drooling, uneducated fool.

He may be a revisionist, and he may engage in disinformation, but at least he does make an effort to address asked question, etc.

At least he does take the effort to read what people say, which is better than the average Zion monkey, that is restricted to simply screaming 'Jew hater', and the mere sight of a criticism of Israel and Zionism.

Then come his rejoicing of the death of a young American girl, at the hands of Zionist murderers.

It is impossible to debate that, for it is just disgusting, and in keeping with the mindset of the cold and psychopathic Zionist mind.

What sort of fruit do you expect a poisoned tree to offer, but poison?

Jack

 

Since we are dealing with evidence (if tomgrossmedia.com can even be considered as 'evidence'), let us observe the data on land ownership:

Thus, 80 percent of the Arab population of Palestine, who owned 90 percent of the land, recieved approxiametly half of the overall territory.

http://books.google.com/books?id=jE...&q=arabs palestine 90 percent of land&f=false

The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land.

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument

http://domino.un.org/maps/m0094.jpg

 

Not true. The Arabs owned 45% of the land, got about 45% of the land during the partition. The bulk of what the Jews got was the Negev desert (66% of Israel's partition) uninhabitable and unsuitable for agriculture at the time.

 

I think you are getting this information from one of my previous posts. This isn't true though, the publication in which I quoted stated 48.50% of the land was owned by Arabs. Furthermore, this is because they did not get any census data on the Negev except for a small area around Beersheba, omitting almost half of Palestine from their data. Later conclusions drawn by the UNSCOP while drafting the partition resolution which included the whole of Palestine, stated that 85% of the land was owned by Arabs.

Secondly, you claim the Negev was "uninhabitable and unsuitable for agriculture at the time" in which is inaccurate as well. There were a little over 100,000 Arabs living in the Negev at the time, and at all times about 4,000,000 dunums of the Negev were being cultivated in any one year.

 

It's widely publicized data and I had known it for a long time, your source indicating 48% ownership merely confirmed what I had already known (give or take a couple of percent). The Negev was not included because no one owned it. A relatively small number of Bedouin nomads did not own the Negev, by its very definition the word 'Nomads' excludes the possibility of ownership.

 

You claim it is "widely publicized", so may I ask for one reputable source? And no, I am not speaking of some third party 'link' that you guys usually distribute around. I have showed you UNSCOP data from the time period which is based off of the entire area of Palestine, which concludes that 85% of the land belonged to Arabs, and I see no reason to believe otherwise.

And you ultimately concede to "give or take a couple percent" to falsify the reality. Actually, the document in which I quoted, which did not survey the Negev, didn't claim "nobody owned it." To begin with, I'd like to point out that there was never a survey done by the Ottoman Government, nor the Mandatory Government on the Negev. As Sir John Hope Simpson said "There is practically an inexhaustible supply of cultivable land in the Beersheba [Negev] area." The Palestine Government did not categorize these lands as state lands, because of Bedouin tribes that inhabited the land were recognized. The numbers for "land-ownership" which strictly left out the Negev (except the very small area of Beersheba) were based off of tax-returns, and the tax distribution committee which complied the lists completely ignored non-taxable land, just as was done in Ottoman times. So, this does not mean you can ignore the 100,000 plus Arabs living in the Negev. In fact, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry recognized Arab rights and interests in the Negev, namely because of the large amount of Arabs living there, compared to Jews and others inhabitants of Palestine at the time.

Now please explain this to me, why should the Palestinians, and other Arabs, accept giving away 55% of the land to a settler-colonialist community, in which only owned 6% of the land at the time? Furthermore, for arguments sake, let's say that the partition of the land should be based off of the current land ownership, as you are trying to justify for the Arabs. Okay, so why shouldn't that apply to the Jews, why shouldn't they only have the 6% they owned?

And please respond to me in whole, as I have done. You have this habit of taking out small quotes out of context every time you reply to anyone, and only end up responding to one, if not any of the arguments. It's ridiculous.

 

This shiat is ridiculous... arguing with Americans about the rights of people living on land ... if they want it. White America can never denounce the atrocities of what the Zionists neo nazis did to the palestinians. If they did they would be making an honest yet self incriminating observation.

The mentality is.. if you dont plant a flag .. you dont own it.. If I plant a flag.. I own it.. you disagree... I will kill you... why is this just? because god told me so.

Hypocrites and theives of the first order at a global level.

 

As an aside, but also related, I cannot see for the life of me how the Zionist political elites can expect us to fall for this BS, and be afraid of Iran having nukes, when A) Iran do not have them and B) Israel do.

Indeed, in the true spirit of little devils reaching out to one another, Israel wanted to sell nukes to S Africa, and may well have done so.

All sorts of excuses will be made, ONCE AGAIN, as to why the 'chosen' should be permitted to have an undeclared (but estimated substantial), nuclear arsenal, yet at the same time they can threaten any of the nations in the ME for having one, or even thinking of having one, or even being paranoid about them having one, even if they do not.

And yet, to any fair minded person, there is no reason why the state of Israel should be allowed to hold unaccountable arms of this type, while threatening a war with another country, over their neurosis that they MIGHT get a nuke(s).

Unless of course you are biased, in which case you can invent a reason.

I would personally prefer that no country in the ME had access to nukes, under all considered circumstances.

Actually, in an ideal world, I would extend that to the world, however, at least in the ME it is achievable, since only Israel have them.

All we need are those with the balls to tell Israel they must account for, then destroy such weapons.

 

Do you mean by virtue of the fact that Native Americans were part of a large scale invasion, decantment, persecution, and perhaps genocide?

That is the way I am reading you.

I am not sure it's true that white Americans would be hypocrites if they were to show allegiance with the Palestinian people, even factoring in the above.

Indeed, I have heard quite a few white Americans admit to me that as far as the Native American thing goes, it was terrible, but in the end, it was also not they who were responsible, they were not even alive, so you have to ask how much guilt they should take on?

Of course, what I would argue for is to ensure that the lives today of all native Americans are made positive, and they are permitted to go about their business unfettered, I am not sure if this is the case or not.

Actually, some may wish to take stock of the hysterical hypocrisy shown by seriously on the edge right wingers, who rant on about Mexicans, and 'defending the borders'. I was reading recently that one of the states in the US has become over run by what can best be described as a right wing, white, American civilian army, who appear to be acting in a manner which is drifting worryingly away from lawful imo.

The ironic thing is that most of these much hated 'immigrants', actually have Native American blood in them, so we have a crazy situation of these white Americans, born to immigrants, acting like a bunch of Rambo's toward those with true American bloodline.

Jack

 

When you come up with a single deed for any part of the Negev we can have a serious conversation. All your rhetoric is baseless, the nomads (that the Bedouins are) did not own the Negev, the Nomads in any part of the world don't own land, never did and never will. The Egyptian Bedouins don't own the Sinai, Egypt does, the Israeli Bedouins don't own the Negev, Israel does. It's their choice to lead nomadic lifestyle which by definition precludes land ownership.

First the idea (quite openly stated) was to create a jewish state - to give land without people to people without land. The objective was to be carried out without hurting other ethnic/religious groups which was pretty much accomplished when Israel was given the nobody's land of the Negev and some parts of Palestine with predominantly Jewish population.

Moreover the whole partition had nothing to do with individual ownership which you keep talking about in the first place. It's not like the land was intended to be confiscated and reassigned. The arabs on the Israeli side of the partition were going to become Israeli citizens with full rights and arab land owners were going to retain all their property, their land, their possessions. Those who stayed did. What's wrong with that, why did the Arabs reject the possibility of becoming a sizable minority in the Jewish state while demanding that the Jews accepted the status of a minority in the Arab state?

 

I dont agree with you. But I do see your point. I see things the way I do because the Native Americans lived the same nightmare that the Palestinians are living today. I witnessed the gross injustice first hand.. I can say with no remorse or regret that I am morbidly ashamed that my government supports israel in its warcrimes, murder and theft. I try to rationalize why americans... especially white "christian" americans would support and condone the crimes... I can either assume that they are so unaware.... so stupid and oblivious that they dont really know what is going on over there... or I can just assume that they are as aware as I am and just dont give a shiat about brownies getting killed for their land.

I will say one thing though.. not all jews are Zionists... there are some very nice people in Israel who destest what their government is doing.

 

I think it is both.

And yes, I am well aware, including some fantastic people like Finkelstein.

[video=youtube;sgiGyITn6Qc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgiGyITn6Qc[/video]

 

In other words, you're unable to prove or substantiate your idea of "45% of the land" true, which I specifically asked for, you only claim it; Secondly, you're unable to disprove the UNSCOP who confirmed that 85% of the land belonged to Palestinians; Third, you rejected Palestinians right to self-determination, of which even the British Mandatory regime did at the time; Fifth, you're unable to make any comment on the fact that there was no survey on the Negev; Sixth, there was no Jewish land ownership in the Negev, nonetheless, there were about 0 Jews living in the Negev, in contrast, over 100,000 Arabs inhabited the Negev, so why give the Negev to the Jews and not the Arabs? Please tell me.

And as you say "Bedouins [no longer] own the Negev, Israel does." Perhaps we should add some meat to that statement. First, of all, Israel destroyed dozens of Bedouin villages in the 1948 war, and expelled 90,000 of them. Secondly, once Israel was established, the offical, exclusively Jewish access to 93% of the land in Israel is classified as "state lands." They deny Palestinians the very permission to purchase land, which also leaves them from such benefits as housing, education, health, and job opportunities. Due to this, the Palestinians have been prevented from establishing even one new town since the foundation of Israel! The 132,000 or so Palestinians who remained after the war in 1947-49, inhabited only 3% of the land. Today, we see about 1,300,000 Palestinians live on the exact same 3% of the land.

Must be why the Jews were the minority all through the establishment of their state. And the only way possible was to push out the indigenous population, in which they did.

Also, how can you create an exclusively Jewish state, and not infringe on the rights of "other ethnic/religious groups." The Jews who immigrated not only caused several disruptions from mass illegal immigration and terrorism. But they also had a uniform policy of disallowing non-Jews from cultivating, or being leased or even sub-leased any of their land. The only time they allowed non-Jews was when they were exploiting the Palestinian population for cheap labor. The the colonialist movement of Zionism wasn't to exploit hte Palestinian people but to disperse and dispossess them. Their intent was to replace the indigenous population with a new settler community. As you have nicely demonstrated for us, claiming that the Palestinians don't exist with their overly restated propaganda "a land without a people for a people with out a land [which was not the case]." And they wanted their workforce to be composed of this settler population. And when you say "when Israel was given nobodies land" in the partition, you are wrong. The demographics of the proposed Jewish state in the partition had nearly an equal amount of Arabs as Jews. Ben-Gurion acknowledged this even when he spoke before the Histradrut Executive on December 3, immediately after the UN vote: "such a composition [of non-Jews] does not even give us absolute assurance that control will remain in the hands of the Jews."

What was wrong with the partition? I think I have examined this several times before on this forum:

First of all, the Palestinians didn't even have a right to vote, and were just completely ignored - which is in violation of the Untied Nations Charter itself. Not allowing a people to self-determination, especially when it is on their land. Giving away private properties like this would make the whole civilized world outraged, if private property should be generally confiscated, and private rights annulled - in which you're advocating. The Arabs though rejected the Partition on a very sensible basis. And were in fact boycotting UNSCOP from the beginning. One reason, is because of geography... They were to divide Palestine into two states, aside of whether it was just or unjust, legal or illegal, workable or unworkable, had disregarded all political geographical and economical considerations had only one goal in view,: to include in the Jewish State the most fertile parts of Palestine and to give the Jewish State an access to the Red Sea. The Jewish state was even shaped awkwardly consisting of 3 corridors and separated the Arab State and from the international zone of the City of Jerusalem by irregular, imaginary lines which cut tens of the Arab villages in half and separated many other Arab towns and villages from their agricultural lands. This even left the hilly and arid parts of Palestine to form the more awkwardly shaped Arab Palestine. The fertile Huleh basin around Lake Tiberius and fertile Coastal Plains along the Mediterranean, were included in the Jewish state too! Resolution 181 in the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine's resolution, states that "the Jews will have the more economically developed part of the country embracing practically the whole of the citrus-producing area which includes a large number of Arab products." Even with the Negev (a place inhabited at the time by a couple hundred thousand Arabs) the Israelis would be better off. Since demographic studies show about 78% of Israelis live on 14% of the land - so the better part. Also, land ownership is another huge reason the resolution was rejected - and not only because if accepted would ethnically cleanse Palestinians living within the designated Jewish State. The Jews represented only 6% of the land, so why give them 55%? The resolution was also rejected because of population: Statistics showed that the population of the proposed Jewish State consisted of 498,000 Jews and 497,000 Arabs. While the designated Arab State would have a vast majority of the Arabs - and only 10,000 Jews. Economic reasons came into play as well for the rejection of the resolution. Because most of the land of the proposed Jewish State belonged to Arabs, the Partition Plan was economically unjust to the Arabs; add to that the harm done by the economic disruption of tens of Arab towns and villages which the Partition was to bring about. The oranges of the coastal plains would be cut off. The Palestinians lost whole lot of different things ranging from towns to olive groves and quarries. The Arabs of Palestine rejected the partition also because they had never recognized the Balfour Declaration and they had never recognized the right of Great Britain to give that Declaration. Also rejected because they were convinced that the United Nations was not competent body to divide their country between them and another people who were brought in by force of arms against their will. The UN did not have the jurisdiction to partition countries. The action was illegal, undemocratic and contrary to the principle of self-determination. I'd also like to recall that Britain in 1937, in an effort to settle the Palestine problem, had sent a Royal (Peel) Commission to Palestine to recommend a solution. The Royal Commission had recommended the partition of Palestine in a manner not far from the one under consideration. However, one year later, the Technical (Woodhead) Commission that was appointed to investigate the possibilities of the recommendation declared the Partition to be unworkable, which prompted Great Britain to abandon the whole idea at the time. The resolution even violated the illegal Palestine Mandate in which Arab rights were safeguarded. In the preamble we read that : 'in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing to be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.' The Mandate Stipulated that nothing-yes, nothing-should be done which might prejudice the rights of the indigenous population. Does not the Partition Plan which gives more than half the country to Jews, prejudice the rights of the existing non-Jewish population of Palestine?
The Untied Nations in a publication in 1981 even recognized the problem with this and even described the partition as a 'crisis'.

 

"Those who stayed" where usually villages where Zionist ethnic cleansing operations did not take place. Hence the reason that when Israel was first established there were only Arabs living in about 6 distinct locations. And they lived under a brutal military rule of the Zionists based off of the Mandatory Emergency Regulations for about 15-18 years (yes, and only in the Arab locations within the state, they were also denied citizenship and only given ID cards with their religious affiliation). Due to these regulations a number of Arabs were evicted from their homes, and they were ghettoized. The Israelis in the early years even took the time to create the plan known as Operation Hafarferet which was to be a mass expulsion of the Palestinians remaining in Israel, or the "Arab-triangle" in Israel.

It was a small amount of Palestinians that did anything to stop implementation of the resolution. Moreover, according to “History of the Haganah” the Palestinians who had arms were more concerned with defending their villages or neighborhoods, than with going out to attack the Jewish forces. Many Palestinian communities also went out of their way to create nonaggression pacts with neighboring Jewish communities. The nonaggression pacts being made by Palestinians became so big that it was taken up in a debate on January 25, 1948 between Ben-Gurion and his political and military assistants. It’s quite ridiculous too, because the majority of the Zionists debating this opposed the nonaggression pacts that could have created peace in neighboring communities. When the Arab Higher Committee declared war in response to the UN Partition Resolution, and the Mufti took action, according to the “History of the Haganah” confirm that “Even before the British left, Arabs towns were taken by the Jews, and local population either fled or was driven out.” In other words, Zionists were already committing crimes against the Arab population, before the Arab Higher Committee declared war on the partition resolution. Furthermore, the Palestinians that actually took action against the Partition numbered very little. The total number of the local Palestinian population that answered the Mufti and the AHC’s call for support never exceeded 3,000 (and yes, this is in a population of about 1 million Arabs that inhabited the area at the time of the partition).

I have actually mentioned the AHC several times now, and I think it would be important to mention that before the partition resolution was proposed, the Arab Higher Committee demanded for the creation of a democratic state, with secure equal rights for all its citizens. They specified this when trying to make a case to the UN Ad Hoc Committee in September 3, 1947.

The League for National Liberation, a political party in Palestine, even worked actively to prevent the provocations and riots that could have led to war. After all, it was the Ben-Gurion who had the final word in most cases, and he did nothing to prevent the Jewish groups like Irgun and Lehi from attacking Palestinians before the establishment of the state. According to official data, 60% of the Zionist forces who died during the war, died outside the boundaries of the proposed Jewish state in the partition plan, and 80% of them died in offense while attacking Palestinian communities. These to numbers tell you a lot.