I would think anybody who had any sort of intuitive reasoning ability would understand that economic development in one area acts as a magnet to those who who live nearby. Our country draws those from Mexico, doesn't it? It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Jewish economic development attracted people into the area. Now, that doesn't mean there were no people already there, but OF COURSE people flowed to a potential source of income, and some of them came into the area from outside. They always do.
beletersi has been exposed by a simple argumentative technique know as "TRUTH dissemination" WELL DONE KLIPKAP! - <<<Off-topic, Personal Attacks, Trolling>>> Keep up the great work klipkap - I will be putting your name forward for the annual awards in the Hague. Regards Foolosophy International Truth Institute
If there's anything you'd like to debate here in the Middle East section - instead of trolling.. please say so. Any further OFF topic posts will be reported and I will no longer respond.
I will reply more fully later since I am busy today. But so as not to let the case of the Zionist Myths cool, let's briefly address exactly what you wrote above -- EXACTLY. Your words reflect a concept often occurring mantra-like in the Zionist publications. Firstly, can we agree on that so that I am not accused of having made up the words that you used or the very similar ones in numerous Zionist sources. OK - "the Displacement of the ancestral owners of the land which is now Israel was the result of the Arab-Israeli war, not the creation of the State of Israel. Fair enough? A very common Zionist point of view? If it can be disproved, would it be acceptable to call it Zionist Myth number 9? I am assuming the the foregoing is fair and that we can get on with debating the validity of your statement - OK?
I want to talk facts. The last page was full of debate, you lost, about the justification for the Jews getting a small state/Israel. Full of you trying to Assign Vague 'Myths', while not being able to debate me directly on any facts. Full of Only "Oh that sounds LIKE zionist myth #x", but never even proving 'x' Was a myth except by reference to.. your OWN previous Empty posts! Not that any was relevant to the points I was making anyway. You attempt to vaguely characterize what I write -and you're left with now only One Partial quote from a whole page of Hard Facts! Have you conceded Everything I wrote except displacement mostly from the 1948 War? (and the inevitable smaller ones from and "statecraft" you left off)
Oooof Beletesri, I can see I am going to have to enter into the same debates with you and make the same facts all over again as was done with Abu and Moishe. That is what I mean about Myths. Well, maybe YOU dont but many do. You see a Myth is something believed by many but not supported by fact. Firstly, Believed by Many: If in any of the debates that follow, you believe that some Myths are in fact NOT believed by Zionists, please say so, so that I can then pull out all of my tired old references from JewishVirtual library, etc. The next is to disprove any particular belief, in which case the circle is almost closed. The final stage is to show that even when disproved, it comes around again in short order. Then it is definitely a Myth. So where do you want to start Beletesri? Shall we do what you seem to view as the Big One, namely that the creation of Israel was justified? OK? But in order to do that we need to somehow establish some much more concrete starting thesis other than there were a significant number of Jews living in the Ottoman empire and therefore the granting to them of their own State was warranted. Or this in fact your main justification, Beletesri? Looking back in this thread it seems to be about your only piece of reasoning. Do you want to start there or would you like to offer something a bit more in line with modern motivations for the granting of sovereignty? Expect to be asked why the Whites in South Africa could not get their own State on the basis of your reasoning, or why the Chinese cant claim a chunk of Indonesia. Also expect to be asked why the ancestral inhabitants of the ground that is now Israel, did not get first call, but instead some foreign folk who owned a bit of real estate. (sorry that I have to be pedantic, but I have wasted much time in the past on faith statements) DING!! Seconds out of the ring.
I don't need to "start" anywhere. The debate is over. You Lost and had No facts. Your only tactic trying to assign my posts to 'zionist myths'; 'myths' ONLY in that your previous one-liner strings/Unbacked-merely-numbered-pronouncements said they were! LOL ie, the last part of the debate on the previous page (you having already lost ALL other points) went like this: But you NEVER Replied "more fully" Nor at all to my FACT on refugees. Instead reverting again to the post/tactic above... Ducking the issue and making vague references to your own mythical myths.
There is a facet of truth to your statement, unfortunately it is far from a complete picture for the huge increase in population of palestinian arabs. There are several reasons why they did no remain static at about half to 3/4 million persons. #1 the exclusion of non-jewish labour from Palestine was becoming prevalent. The Jewish fund held that all land acquired from Arabs be held as inalienable Jewish property, not to be sold or leased to others. This meant Pelestinian feudal holdings, bought from under them from the ottoman owners, often found themselves put off from long worked land. There are notable exceptions though: Dr Ruppin, from his memoirs records that he had to turn to Arab Labour to build Tel Aviv as it couldn't be done with Jewish labour only. The two factors for this being Arab knowledge of building on that ground, and their cheap labour. Indeed the first house built by the Jewish labourers collapsed under construction. #2 Infant mortality: It dropped dramatically before fall of the Ottoman empire. The leading Israeli demographer Yehoshua Porath documents this explosion thoroughly in his works. As all the research by historians and geographers of modern Palestine shows, the Arab population began to grow again in the middle of the nineteenth century. That growth resulted from a new factor: the demographic revolution. Until the 1850s there was no "natural" increase of the population, but this began to change when modern medical treatment was introduced and modern hospitals were established, both by the the Ottoman authorities and by the foreign Christian missionaries. The number of births remained steady but infant mortality decreased. This was the main reason for Arab population growth, not incursions into the country by the wandering tribes who by then had become afraid of the much more efficient Ottoman troops. Toward the end of Ottoman rule the various contemporary sources no longer lament the outbreak of widespread epidemics. This contrasts with the Arabic chronicles of previous periods in which we find horrible descriptions of recurrent epidemicstyphoid, cholera, bubonic plaguedecimating the population. Under the British Mandate, with still better sanitary conditions, more hospitals, and further improvements in medical treatment, the Arab population continued to grow. The Jews were amazed. In spite of the Jewish immigration, the natural increase of the Arabsat least twice the rate of the Jews'slowed down the transformation of the Jews into a majority in Palestine. To account for the delay the theory, or myth, of large-scale immigration of Arabs from the neighboring countries was proposed by Zionist writers. Mrs. Peters accepts that theory completely; she has apparently searched through documents for any statement to the effect that Arabs entered Palestine. But even if we put together all the cases she cites, one cannot escape the conclusion that most of the growth of the Palestinian Arab community resulted from a process of natural increase. Jehoshua Porath, Proffessor Emeritus Hebrew University. reply to Joan Peters. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5249 The article actually deals pretty thoroughly with most demographic issues, and there are few who would try to take issue with Porath's credentials.
You continue to post the most UNjewish credentials I've ever seen. First, promoting the 'Ethnic Cleansing' routine continuously and with other snippets like "Euro influx"/"threatened" routine. (despite denial.) 2. Similarly, When Foolosophy posted his Bogus/Wrong Jewish 'dualie' string.. you didn't have the knowledge to deny it but try and (subtly dammingly) apologize it away, indeed, enhance/Agree Him, with the "But it's 'Client State" routine TOO. and 3, now, quoting a 22 yr old article by Porath, a Leftist Anti-Israeler from the at least as left/anti-Israel NY Rev of books (who has a small stable full of anti-Israelers), Arguing Against Joan Peters' Book which supports the Premise of Arab population growth through emmigration. The book itself which you DON'T even mention, but in that Porath is making a weak rebuttal against it, which in turn is later re-rebutted by Daniel Pipes. Alan Dershowitz recent book, 'The Case for Israel' uses Peters', now Time-Tested facts so heavily, he was accused of Plagiarism in text and Idea- taking whole portions. You mention your "Jewishness".. but Please.. debate as you will, there is Nothing pro-Jewish in your posts....not even 'half'. Perhaps only in the far left fringe camp of 'Jews' like Chomsky, Finkelstein, Amira Hass, Pappe, ete who are Wildly Anti-Israel and borderline anti-semitic. (It's a great living for about 2 dozens Jews who engage in it being used as Cover/"see!" for 'anti-zionists'.) *EDIT*
I must be a race traitor because I posted an article by Yehoshua porath, arguably the most respected Jewish demographer of all time. Ok, this is why i pretty much ignore everything you write. Peters is a fraud, that is accepted by allcomers except maybe a deluded, dreaming few. Here however Porath explains why her arguments which you so shamelessly regurgitate, amount to nothing less than bs. if by'time tested' you mean sheer made up disingenuity, then yah. Feel free to consume at your leisure. Just the most venerated demographers in Israel don't agree with you or dershowitz. I'm not dropping my pants to show you proof. *EDIT* hmm, the race-traitor argument again. So far you've tried to refute my post by saying that I'm anti-semite, not jewish, maybe am jewish but not jewish enough, maybe am jewish but am a traitor because I don't support the bs fallacies that keep getting passed off as truth regarding demograpphics. I must be a leftist, and that's bad, even though it was leftists who founded Israel, but wait that's good. you sound conflicted and angry, but nowhere do you ever make any decent arguments. In fact I can respect a good argument for any facet of the debate but with you I just find barren soil. I have one MO. Tell it like it is, take the good with the bad and accept truth wherever it leads you. Don't (*)(*)(*)(*) on my back and tell me it's raining. The only way to resolve a situation is to expose a situation and lay it bare. You will notice porath's piece makes great comment about about Arab propaganda. A good debater would have read it and taken that tack. As for Israel being a client state, that's a given. I don't know why you pretend otherwise. Israel has been client to britain france and the US. That's called alliance and the seat of strategic thinking. You make it sound like a bad thing for me to say it out loud.
1. I mention your race.. Only because YOU did. Otherwise I wouldn't know it. You, using it as some sort of genetic even-handedness ploy. But it's YOUR ploy, not my invention. 2. (echoing the '2' above), you conspicuously leave out. I would think someone with any 'Jewishness' or even any radar at all for anti-semites, would immediately want to check Foolosophy's 'Dualie' claim. NOT you! You go right to work apologizing for a damming Lie about Jews/Israelis while other posters hit Google and Wiki and make mincemeat of it. You didn't even want to check it, just Cop to it! This was Classic of your work here as was the whole "I Said Ethnic Cleansing" routine you went parroted with until I got in your face, then it was "I was just discussing it". Now, even more obviously I was correct then too. Now you're all in Faux Huff at being called an anti-semite - which I specifically said I wasn't doing. You also got called on your Porath/NYRB credentials which you said (being half Jewish) were impeccable. Well they certainly are not. It's a well known Anti-Israel Den, which you don't mention *EDIT*. I didn't claim Peters was the ultimate arbiter, tho recently backed; only that You left out the whole context and promoted Porath/NYRB as having unquestioned credentials.. which thru my post we now know ISN'T true. So my basic point stands.. you are [at least] anti-Israel in a Leftist kind of way and have shown so in every single string in which it's an issue. YOU, Yes You, Using your 'half-Jewishness' as being genetically and rationally therefore balanced will no longer fly here. You're in the Camp with those Leftist, anti-Israelers I mentioned above.. many as I also said .. borderline anti-semites. Finkelstein recently gone from DePaul for his 'Leftism'. (cough) *EDIT* And 'Anti-Israel' (cough) even to the point of not questioning Foolosophy! whose position here is Well known to say the least.
Hmm, I'll take that as a 'win', insofar as your lack of any substantive debate constitutes anything so much as that [a distasteful term I agree]. I think once someone is pondering my psychology and genetics based on having a moderate stance without me offering anything but historical points, they have jumped the shark. Now where the debaters at? BTW, I still find your distaste of leftists curious, given that Israel was built by leftists. I take the tag proudly, even though I'm a centerist. Still, todays centerists are having as hard a time as todays moderates in convincing extremists that they really exist. Luckily we don't need your approval.
Note the use of only vague relativist language above.. while I point to specific conversation on this board. "I said Ethnic Cleansing" Not challenging/going along with blatant anti-Jew Foolosophy's "Dualie" Claim! Espousing that NYRB and your other positions are 'Centrist'. LOL. Nor me taking you apart in the last about your attempted hand-grenades "Race Traitor" and "anti-semite", When in fact it's You using your stated Race as some sort of genetic even-handedness claim. You can take it any way you want (like you do loosely with facts).. but you've been outed here by me.. With detailed Documentation from YOUR other posts and strings here.
*EDIT* I'm sorry that I didn't reply to your other posts, but I didn't because you quite plainly didn't read them properly, especially the first ones. I know how it works; you see a statement and you jump on it as per tradition, but don't actually read it then spend a week trying to make ground out of it. We've all been there but seriously that bus left before you even got there. I know this game, called 'out the moderate', because I know that in your apparently polarised view, there is no middle ground. I am comfortable in my roots, and confortable in my debate position as someone who detests bs myths. To me, you're position is just another of extremism and cultivation of histories that suit your position. Now you can put up a debate in this debate forum, or you can just waffle on about my personality and race credentials. If it's the latter then expect me to bypass your posts *EDIT*. I know I don't fit your small world but that's really not my problem. Put up a debate like the other I've met here. Really there are a few standouts, and I would rather engage with them than to wade through your off-topic musings. No offence.
You didn't reply because you couldn't and still can't. (see below) There are no 'gotchas', your position the same throughout Actually they're all quite consistent as I pointed out. Left/Anti-Israel, as outlined by me. Ahh the "moderate who speaks of Ethnic cleansing, agrees/doesn't challenge fellow 'moderate' Foolosophy on Jewish Dualies, and helps his point! 'Moderate' who quotes known acknowledged Leftist/Anti-Israel NYRB as 'Centrist'. That "Moderate"? Ahhh delusion. I debate with pinpoint specifics on the I-P conflict or with documentating Your previous posts. You have now twice taken a powder, once even hollowly claimed victory! because you have NO choice - you have no debate nor rebuttal as to my facts on your positions. Such as this post .. and the "Centr!st!" state of mind that's lets you go along with Foolo and much else. This post in particular completely gutted your position both factually and your personal MO here: EDIT: Note her posts ... now defeated as above and Below as they dwindle.. unable to challenge any point/matter of fact I posted on the conflict or her style/Use of 'half-Jewishness', etc. She is now down to merely 'Dissing' and characterizing.
Now I know I'm a moderate. Understand foolosophy that i am required to say something here, as my silence would be construed by bele as proof of me not being jewish. It's a rock and a hard place to be stuck between both of your worlds. You know that statement you made is not true, so why make it?
I criticise Israeli violence and aggression in the Occupied territories. I support the Palestinian right to exist - as I do for the Israeli rihght to exist in peace in the region.. I dont support the expansionist theft of Palestinian land by the Israeli government - especially since 1967. Now Israel was given its boundaries in the 1940's when it was created. Everybody agreed with those boundaries. No body agreed to the Occupation of land and people outside these recognised boundaries. \ It has nothingto do with anti-semitism or holocaustian denial stances NOR has it anything to do with being a self-loathing jew. These are the techniques of marginalisation of dessenting voices and preventing the truth being told. OR AREN'T WE ALLOWED TO CRITICISE THE ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL FASCIST ACTIONS OF THE IDF ON LANDS THEY HAVE ACTUALLY STOLEN? Why would that be?
But it is true - the Jewish people believe that they are the CHOSEN PEOPLE and of course this would make GOD a very strange entity indeed - it would make GOD a biased, bigoted racist. and we know that this cannot be true! DONT WE AKIRA?
Everybody is free to criticise the acts of organisations, states and individuals but to single out a race is a step too far IMO. It's the same problem I have with the people who come on and make grand statements about Muslims or remain curiously silent as others do. It just doesn't hold water to make such a sweeping statement about a race. It has been argued that Judaism isn't a race, but for all practical purposes it is, and everybody knows it. I will criticise Hamas for their idiocy, and I will criticise the IDF for their wanton destruction, and this is my right as a free thinking individual, in spite of the extremists, but there's no way i can criticise a race. it is a fallacy. so take your anger at the IDF and I can debate that.
well seeing as you are on the topic of HAMAS - can you explain why the ISraeli government funded and intitially set up the HAMAS organisation in the occupied territories? (I will give you a hint, as a political alternative to the PLO - and to divide the resistance to the Israeli occupation) This is not a novel method of destabilising an enermy - it goes back to the Ancient Roman and Hellenic empires. BUT when HAMAS eventually got enough support and won an election in Palestine, the Israelis and the USA were Appauled - so much for reaping what you sowe and so much for supporting the democratic process. What a mess the US/Israeli web of lies has created in the region
Your honourable Judge, Jury and Executioner, permit me to disagree with your credentials. You are not any of these. So let's clear this very mudied slate. I have time now and I will repond to your postulations. Your main thesis is that Israel has a valid right to exist because Jews lived in the Ottoman empire at the time of it's demise (with the Armistice of Mudros in 1918 ). Correct? 1) On what precedents of International Law do you base this asssertion, namely that residence gives the right to new statehood? 2) Even if we were to accept your thesis (which I dont due to the total lack of supporting facts, contrary to your mantra that you have supplied them in more than sufficiency to prove your case) in which of the Ottoman administrative units were the Jews in the majority? 3) Why were they given a vast amount of territory greater that their "majority" territory? 4) Where do you get the statistic that the Arabs were given 99% of the Ottoman empire 5) What was the REAL legal basis for Israel's creation - the real source, not some acquired authority? 6) Did this source respect the promises made to the two parties in the current conflict? Once these questions have been answered, it is quite clear that your thesis of justification for Israel's existence on the basis of residency of a small number of Jews owning some real estate, is completely irrelevant. Do you really want me to provide these answers to show that you "proof" of "validity" of Israel is in fact anything but proof or valid, or can we dispense with such a waste of time? Instead, let me suggest that we get on with what might yet prove to be the fundmental issue in this conflict, namely justice as opposed dubious legality (of a State's existence based on an apallingly irresponsible execution of its mandatory responsibilities by the British). For the record, based on the logic of the cause-and-effect principal, I trace this conflict back, not to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war as you do, but to the British ****-up from 1916 (when they didnt even hold a mandate) until 1947. But that is something that no-one is likely to be able to unwind, at least not given the current power balance. And that is why I maintain that the existence of the State of Israel should be acknowledged. Yes, you read correctly, and I have stated this before. We should not try to unravel (pre-)1948. But that does not mean that we should ignore history and start from the Arab-Israeli was onwards, as you do Baletesri. On the contrary!!! That would be a real travesty of justice. Instead, the creation of the State of Israel was done with extreme prejudice to the rights of the ancestral land users, whether by totally legal processes or not. Now that REALLY IS one of the few indisputable facts. Which means that, when we say that we cannot turn back the clock and make Israel disappear, the "Palestinians" have been subject to an injustice that has not yet been addresed. And if anyone cannot see the 1948 Arab-Israeli war as a direct Arab response to this injustice, then their sense of reality needs a serious makeover. So I disagree TOTALLY with you B on the reasons for the Palestinian pogrom. So, here is my summary from what I have read: 1) The creation of the State of Israel followed "due process" 2) This "due process" stands on shaky legal ground since neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the UN, had any right to create international boundaries nor to take land from one people and give it to another group. However, this "shakiness" was not upheld in the International Court during 1948 treatment of the petition of the Arab countires. [If anyone can find a good reference to this case in the International Court, I would be most grateful] 3) The fact that the creation of the State of Israel has a measure of legal underpinning does not mean that it was JUST. Were an Arab to say to me that the entire drama in the southern Levant from 1908 until the present day could be traced directly to injustices foisted on the Arab ancestral land occupiers, I would have great difficulty in proving them to be incorrect. This is NOT TO SAY that there were not items of justification in granting the Jews a homeland, e.g. the Holocaust, the pogroms througout the ages, and the bigotry that often surfaced when the Jews tried to make a life in someone else's country. But as I have stated before, two wrongs don't make a right, and compensation to the Jews does not detract from the fact that it was done at the expense, not of Jews in Mahanttan or Sydney or Johannesburg or Warsaw, but at the expense of Arabs in the southern Levant. Given all of the above, where do I stand. Firstly, stop the Myths that try to show that the Zionists are pure law-respecting peace-loving people who only accepted what is rightfully theirs, both in 1948 and in 1967, and that the ancestral occupiers of the disputed territories are without legal backing and are only motivated by unjustified terrorist tendencies, with the Arabs never having made any serious effort to seek peaceful solutions to the conflict. That is simply not true. So much for 1948. What happened then? The ancestral owners got screwed yet further. Shall we start there? Or do you really want to go back to the shoddy research of Ms Peters? I am happy with either route.
There is certainly nothing to argue with there. I just don't really think Palestinian fecundity (which continues at extremely high levels to this day) is really the issue. One people's ability to procraete themselves into a position of numerical superiority vis a vis another has no bearing when discussing the morality and ethics of any situation. I realize this particular subthread has to do with matters pertinant to demographics, but this seems an unintentional diversion to me. At the advent of Zionism, there were more Arabs than Jews living in the area called Palestine. THis is certainly undisputed fact. Since there were no people called Palestinians then, however, the demographic issue is between Jewish and Arab, and this is an important fact to remember. As more Jewish people moved into the area and provided economic stimulus, SOME additional Arabs moved into the region, and as you have stated, they procreated at high levels and as the infant mortality rate dropped, their population increased. This is true for both those who were already there and those who moved in. Arabs (by culture) and Jews are both native to this region, and todays populations reflect similar characteristics, both to each other and to the amount of non "pure" blood in each population. Even as people like to characterize jews as "European", the amount of European blood in Jewish Israelis is little different than the non "palestinian" (as they have been called for the last several decades) blood is in the local Arabs. The real issue people should be discussing is the status of Arab vrs Jew in the time frame between the 1880s and 1950s. What happened to the populations? How and why did people move from one area to another? What are the causes for antagonism, and how was this antagonism agitated from beyond the region? How did the major powers affect the outcome? There are so many questions to ask BESIDES the minutia of who was there and who wasn't that to fail to address these other issues is to fail to grasp the situation. In, say, the 1930s to 1940s, there were close to a million Jews living in Arab lands who aren't there any more. There were also close to 700,000 Arabs living within what is now Israel who aren't there any more. There has been a winnowing of populations, but grievances remain, and until one understands the nature of those grievances, and unless one applies the same moral standards to one group as they do the other, I doubt there can be any really meaningful dialogue.
That and the promise of the British Administrators/conquerors and the World's only Legal body at the Time.. League of Nations. And not to forget.. there was the 1919 Agreement OF THE Head of The Arabs. Well gee Klipkap.. there isn't much Intl Law on this at all. So you intentionally pose a non-sequitor/fallacious/strawman question. Sleazy tactic. Nonetheless... Rarely has there been a 30 years promise, agreement of the Leader of the 'other side', Faisal, and finally a vote of the successor and yet a Second Intl Body, the UN! How many States have that kind of legal underpinning? Just One as previously documented. But as also previously documented, 2/3 of what became Israel was State Land, passing from the Ottomans to the British to The Jews. Taking care, in fact, to give Israel the sparsest most Arid Parts, including the HALF of that country that is the Negev Desert.. again, owned by No Arab. Not 'Vast' in any sense. Less than promised originally and again- the crappiest parts. Above? Tel-Aviv founding 1909. Note all the displaced... er.... Scorpions? I Have already documented the Arabs got 87% of the British Mandate alone: See my reply to Foolo here doing Just that: http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/31108-palestinian-loss-land-1946-2000-a.html Maybe you can do the math for the other few percent now? I hope? 5, already covered above. Israel was at least as legitimate as Capricious British creations such as Jordan and Iraq, and unlike them and others.. were voted on by a World Body.. the UN. (not to mention it's predecessor again) How many states have more legal underpinning than Israel? How about The USA? All covered above.. but you of course are going with non-sequitor and Fallacious Logic here- asking for 'Due Process' where virtually no precedent existed, but where in fact it was indeed given, by both sides and a TWO World Bodies over 30 years. In fact, that's Unprecedented Due Process. It certainly IS true.. unless you'd like to document Arab attempts at Peace and recognition from 1948 to 2003 the 'Saudi Peace Plan'. LOL Note despite tons of BS there is Still no rebuttal to my statement (despite quoting it and promising an answer with more time) about where the vast majority of the Refugees came from... and that would be the Arab-Started War in 1948, NOT the partition, Resolution 181 which created Israel. Will there be anything else?
