[Zionist Nationalist]

I don't really get your anti-right-of-return argument, ZN. How is okay for Jews like you from anywhere in the world to move to Israel while Palestinians who actually lived in Palestine, or their parents/grandparents did, don't have the same right?

Related to this thread and reposting to show the level of hypocrisy about people who cry about terrorism while simultaneously crying about non-violent tactics to deal with Israel's fascistic behaviour.
Fighting Israeli Occupying Forces Is “Terrorism.” Boycotting Is “Anti-Semitism.” What’s Allowed?

Palestinians "refugees" are the only refugees in the world that have been refugees for so long

they get a special treatment unlike aany other group of people isnt it a discrimination?

also Israel was established to be a Jewish country and not another Arab country (they already have 22 countries) letting all those "refugees" in will be the end of Israel its unacceptable. they must give up this idiotic "right of return" or else there is even no point of talking about peace.

[skinster]

How do Palestinian refugees get special treatment if they are... uh.... refugees?

You didn't answer my question, so here it is again: How is okay for Jews like you from anywhere in the world to move to Israel while Palestinians who actually lived in Palestine, or their parents/grandparents did, don't have the same right?

You and Israel can pretend it's a Jewish state even though the majority who live there and in the territory it occupies aren't Jewish.

[wat0n]

Also related: NY's Governer Cuomo sent out an executive order stating people who support the BDS movement would be blacklisted...or something. It's obviously retarded because he's ultimately attacking free speech. But at the same time, making BDS activists work harder.

Andrew Cuomo and Other Democrats Launch Severe Attack on Free Speech to Protect Israel

You mean they are getting... Boycotted?

[redcarpet]

How do Palestinian refugees get special treatment if they are... uh.... refugees?

As it were, they've been allowed to inherit the status.

No other national group in the world has ever had that.

Of the 750,000 expelled/fled, only about 50,000 are still alive.

The UN expanded the definition to include their decedents. So the figure is in the millions. You can't 'return' to where you've never been, remember. Most of these 'refugees' were born outside Israel AFTER 1948 in refugee camps, etc. The right of return means you have the right to return to a state you were born in. These people were not born in Israel, not even in the Mandatory period.

How does being born in Egypt mean you have the right to live in what is now the State of Israel. Yes, your parents or grandparents were from there, but YOU weren't. You can't 'return' to a country you were not born in. Yassir Arafat talked about him 'returning' to Jerusalem. Aforshiori; he was born in Cairo.

If the 50,000 figure is all the Palestinians stuck with, instead of inflating the number, there'd be no problem. 50,000 new Arabs in Israel does not threaten the Jewish majority. Millions do.

[Zionist Nationalist]

You didn't answer my question, so here it is again: How is okay for Jews like you from anywhere in the world to move to Israel while Palestinians who actually lived in Palestine, or their parents/grandparents did, don't have the same right?

You and Israel can pretend it's a Jewish state even though the majority who live there and in the territory it occupies aren't Jewish.

Because they lost and they have no ability to dictate to us what to do. Israel can decide who it accept into its country and who not. same as the US can decide to give or not to give citizenship for all Mexicans

they can go to their future state in the west bank and maybe Gaza if they want.

and the majority of Israel are Jewish unless you count the west bank but its not part of Israel

[pugsville]

A You can't 'return' to where you've never been, remember. .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

and yet Jews had the right to "return" and set up their state in some one else's country. thousands of years compared to sixty odd? and don't realise the irony and the complete under cutting of the zionist concept?

the root cause of the conflict is the vast emigration of a population determined to set up their own country, andy native population anywhere in the world would have rejected it. fundamentally the Zionists were the aggressors. no population would have reacted well. the Idea if only the Palestinians would have reacted reasonably there would have been no conflict is completely cockeyed. no other population would have accepted it. the Idea is just flawed, really where people's ancestors lived thousands of years ago as a given principle to draw borders today?

zionism was agressive, it was racist, it was never going to be achieved peacefully. Zionism was the root cause of the conflict.

[redcarpet]

Zionism was the root cause of the conflict.

Then explain Arab violence BEFORE Zionism was even discussed as an idea. It's racist to oppose Zionism because you're saying ONLY Jews can't have their own state. And the decision was made peacefully. But the Arab states launched a war of aggression (supreme international crime remember) with the support of an Arab insurgency internal to Israel.

Also, last I checked, 'the root cause of the conflict' is supposed to to be the occupation of the West Bank & Gaza in 1967. So what on earth are you talking about?

[pugsville]

Then explain Arab violence BEFORE Zionism was even discussed as an idea. It's racist to oppose Zionism because you're saying ONLY Jews can't have their own state. And the decision was made peacefully. But the Arab states launched a war of aggression (supreme international crime remember) with the support of an Arab insurgency internal to Israel.

Also, last I checked, 'the root cause of the conflict' is supposed to to be the occupation of the West Bank & Gaza in 1967. So what on earth are you talking about?

there was no widespread Palestinian violence towards Jews before zionism.

it's racist t say that a foreign population has the right to immigrate and set up their own state over a another population, that they have greater rights our to race.

it was not achieved peacefully.it always relied on force. it was impossible to achieve peacefully.

[ThirdTerm]

Israel was one of the former British colonies similar to Australia and New Zealand and nobody demands white Australians to leave the country, including Aboriginal Australians. The root cause of the conflict was the British evacuation from Palestine without settling territorial disputes between Jewish settlers and Palestinians. When the British Mandate of Palestine expired on 14 May 1948, a civil war immediately broke out between them. Israel is also abiding by the majority rule of decolonisation and Arab minorities are fully enfranchised in Israel, which is quite different from South Africa or Rhodesia, where non-white citizens were brutally treated.

Although the insurgency played a major role in persuading the British to quit Palestine, other factors also influenced British policy. Britain, facing a deep economic crisis and heavily dependent on the United States, was facing a massive financial burden over its many colonies, military bases, and commitments abroad. At the same time, Britain had also lost the centerpiece of the rationale of its Middle East policy after the end of the British Raj in Colonial India. Britain's Middle East policy had been centered around protecting the flanks of its sea lines of communication to India. After the British Raj ended, Britain no longer needed Palestine. Finally, Britain still had alternative locations such as Egypt, Libya, and Kenya to base its troops.[51]

[redcarpet]

there was no widespread Palestinian violence towards Jews before zionism.(1)

it's racist to say that a foreign population has the right to immigrate and set up their own state over a another population, that they have greater rights our to race.(2)

it was not achieved peacefully(3).

1 - The was, from Palestine to the Kingdom of Engalnd to the Kingdom of Spain. For 2,000 years. So what conclusion was drawn? The Jews must have their own state where they are a majority. Because wherever they immigrate anti-semitism arises. They go to a new country, anti-semitism arises again, and on and on. They can't go here, they can't go there....WHERE can they go?

2 - I agree; why don't you? The decision has been made to partition the land. Both sides get their own state. Immigration to swamp Israel using an inflated figure of 'refugees' to set up a state is not legal, it is not morally justifyiable and it is barbarism by another name. The stateless Palestian Arabs can have SOME of Palestine; not all of it. That's better than none of it.

3 - It was. Then a domestic Arab insurgency erupted in the newly born State of Israel & Arab states around it launched a war of aggression (the ban is total, no reasons justifies it). And then Egypt & Jordan denied their national aspirations by occupying the Gaza Strip & West Bank. The PLO is eventually formed; not to end the occupation by Egypt & Jordan but to attack ISRAEL which wasn't occupying them at the time. And to kill Israeli civilians outside of it. It's called terrorism.

[pugsville]

1 - The was, from Palestine to the Kingdom of Engalnd to the Kingdom of Spain. For 2,000 years. So what conclusion was drawn? The Jews must have their own state where they are a majority. Because wherever they immigrate anti-semitism arises. They go to a new country, anti-semitism arises again, and on and on. They can't go here, they can't go there....WHERE can they go?

2 - I agree; why don't you? The decision has been made to partition the land. Both sides get their own state. Immigration to swamp Israel using an inflated figure of 'refugees' to set up a state is not legal, it is not morally justifyiable and it is barbarism by another name. The stateless Palestian Arabs can have SOME of Palestine; not all of it. That's better than none of it.

3 - It was. Then a domestic Arab insurgency erupted in the newly born State of Israel & Arab states around it launched a war of aggression (the ban is total, no reasons justifies it). And then Egypt & Jordan denied their national aspirations by occupying the Gaza Strip & West Bank. The PLO is eventually formed; not to end the occupation by Egypt & Jordan but to attack ISRAEL which wasn't occupying them at the time. And to kill Israeli civilians outside of it. It's called terrorism.

1. how is anything in the kingdom of Spain or England anything to do with the Palestinians. the Idea of Zionism is a fairly reasonable reaction to the rejection of Jews and there oppression of existing states, the conclusion that they must found their own state is completely understandable. but such a state can only be founded by either expelling the native population or imposing foreign rule something the Zionist reject for themselves. expecting others to accept conditions you yourself find unacceptable s not a reasonable position. the Zionists were pretty committed to the Idea of transfer right form the start. expelling the native population by ecumenic means, denying them employment and land ownership. when economic means did not work, violence was the only option.

2. the decision to allow zionists immigration was a bad one. it could only lead to violence
how is that the Palestinians problem? why must they yield. if you appeal to the legalism of he partition regardless of t's practicality, then you should accept the return of Palestinians. the return of Palestinians is no much less barbaric and unjust as the imposition of zionists on Palestine originally.

I accept the existence of Israel and the 1967 borders. but you have recognise how we got were we have. by racist colonisation in which a great wrong was done to the Palestinian population.

3. no only by force could the zionist immigration occur.only by terrorism could date British be driven out. only by bribery and threats could the vote past the UN. the zionists drove a large number people from their homes by violence and took everything they had, and operated a brutal free fire policy to stop them returning. to say that violence against Israel was caused by Israel's aggression. British bayonets, zionists forces the formation of Israel could only be achieved by force.

[anasawad]

Actually jews lived quite a good life for 100s of years in Palestine with Muslims and Arabs in general.
Zionists were the problem. Now there is an even deeper issue. The jews that lived in the land were also to some extent Arabs. And currently they are being marginalized in Israel and they're against the state of Israel.
So when you have Muslims. Christians and Jews against zionists. Then i guess the problem is zionism.

Then for the part where you said the Palestinians should just settle with that little piece of their land instead of all of it. And worse its getting smaller by the day due to settlements.
Now lets say the Arabs or Persians stood up and basically fucked up Israel. Gathered all Israelis and put them in a very small piece of land while retaining military force in it to keep them under control.
Now according to you. That is actually morally justifiable right ??

[wat0n]

Oh, that meme that Jews just enjoyed the good life in Palestine and the Islamic world... Too bad it isn't true. In reality, they had second-class status as dhimmis and were attacked from time to time (usually when governmental authority weakened - particularly Ottoman one -, as it usually happens).

In Palestine they were even worse off as large segments of the population consisted of old, poor religious Jews who were dependent on the charity of the Jewish Diaspora - unlike Jews in other parts of the Islamic world who were much wealthier.

[redcarpet]

Actually jews lived quite a good life for 100s of years in Palestine with Muslims and Arabs in general.

American slave owners in the South said the same about their subjects.

1. how is anything in the kingdom of Spain or England anything to do with the Palestinians. the Idea of Zionism is a fairly reasonable reaction to the rejection of Jews and there oppression of existing states, the conclusion that they must found their own state is completely understandable. but such a state can only be founded by either expelling the native population or imposing foreign rule something the Zionist reject for themselves. expecting others to accept conditions you yourself find unacceptable s not a reasonable position. the Zionists were pretty committed to the Idea of transfer right form the start. expelling the native population by ecumenic means, denying them employment and land ownership. when economic means did not work, violence was the only option.

2. the decision to allow zionists immigration was a bad one. it could only lead to violence
how is that the Palestinians problem? why must they yield. if you appeal to the legalism of he partition regardless of t's practicality, then you should accept the return of Palestinians. the return of Palestinians is no much less barbaric and unjust as the imposition of zionists on Palestine originally.

I accept the existence of Israel and the 1967 borders. but you have recognise how we got were we have. by racist colonisation in which a great wrong was done to the Palestinian population.

3. no only by force could the zionist immigration occur.only by terrorism could date British be driven out. only by bribery and threats could the vote past the UN. the zionists drove a large number people from their homes by violence and took everything they had, and operated a brutal free fire policy to stop them returning. to say that violence against Israel was caused by Israel's aggression. British bayonets, zionists forces the formation of Israel could only be achieved by force.

1. Most of them weren't expelled. Most FLED, remember. It's not fair to exaggerate, remember. If you want you can pretend 100% were expelled as opposed to 10%, etc, but that's you being a propagandist to say the least. If the Arab insurgency hadn't happened Irgun & Lehi would not have had the excuse they needed. They got it & you blame the partition itself, instead of the Arab leadership for treason against their government? Israel was not founded ON expulsion. That happened afterwards and in in SOME Arab towns & villages.

"I accept the existence of Israel and the 1967 borders. but you have recognise how we got were we have. by racist colonisation in which a great wrong was done to the Palestinian population"

That only happened in 1967. The UN creating two states in Palestine is not 'colonisation'. It is the UN using its legal authority to pass a resoltuon to create two states. And it's not consistent with your claim to accept the existence of Israel if you want the FULL implementation of the Palestinian's inflated right of return; an Arab majority would mean Hamas would win the election and both states merge by default & all Jews, not just Israeli Jews that immigrated there but those BORN there, either expelled or KILLED.

3. The basis wasn't 'diplomacy'. You seem to have forgotten the resolution was based on a UN Commission. It recommended partition. Then the diplomacy occurred to prepare for a resolution debate in the UNGA. What happened afterwards is irrelevant, because it already was in the air that separation of Palestine by partition is the conclusion the Commission reached because the two communities were moving apart. For cultural reasons, politics & TERRORISM from the 1920s-30s & on into the 40s.

We're not just talking about terror going on in the 1990s with suicide bombings & other attacks, but efforts to dictate to the League of Nations & Later UN on what should happen to the region. Terrorist radicals on both sides with expulsion in their minds & rhetoric.

Painting the Jews & then Israels post 1948 as somehow 100% wrong and responsible is ahistorical BS. AS well as that the Zionist movement was 'committed' to expulsion. A personal view is not the same thing as an official position. The views of some people on the fringes, that weren't even active in Zionist group meetings....you're engaging in hype & grandstanding for their benefit. Armchair intellectuals sitting in a room giving an interview, that's not the same thing as a commitment and so it wasn't. Zionism was a left wing, secular and internationalist idea. It still is, despite the post-1977 right-wing tainting of it.

[anasawad]

Can you bring one report of oppression of Jews in Palestine before zionist scum came along ??

Because i know for a fact that for 100s of years the coast of the levant was for Christians. Jews. Shia. Alawites and Druze.
And they were living just fine until the late 19th century and early 20th century. Basically right when Britain came along and Zionists started immegrating here.

[wat0n]

Can you bring one report of oppression of Jews in Palestine before zionist scum came along ??

Because i know for a fact that for 100s of years the coast of the levant was for Christians. Jews. Shia. Alawites and Druze.
And they were living just fine until the late 19th century and early 20th century. Basically right when Britain came along and Zionists started immegrating here.

You are a Muslim and you don't know about the dhimmah?

[redcarpet]

Can you bring one report of oppression of Jews in Palestine before zionist scum came along?

Lol, if you're an Islamist fanatic you'd reject there was. Of course. Just as women don't suffer 'oppression' under Islam, neither do Jews and other infidels.......Sharia law & its unequal treatment of Muslims vs. non-Muslims isn't 'oppression' in their view, oh no.

Should I bother to ask if Jews & Arabs live as equals in Gaza? Howabout Saudi Arabia? Can a Jew in Saudi Arabia get a job without being told 'no' LEGALLY? How many new non-Mosques are being built? Is the construction of a new Christian church or Buddhist temple being autorised lately or are they rejected under Islamic law?

There is no Apartheid in Israel, but there is in the Arab & Muslim world. Against Jews as well as anyone. Even against fellow Muslims. Yes fellow MUSLIMS. Shiites & Sufis.

Persecution and oppression from the 1890s to today.....that's constant in the Arab world. And it continues even after the expulsions of Jews from Arab states against Arabs & Muslims. Social pluralism and cosmopolitanism doesn't reign today, anymore than Mandatory Palestine NOR before that period. Is it ANY wonder the Christian Crusades happened? Christians and Jews being told 'You're are not authorised entry. We don't accept your kind here. Your entry pass is rejected.'?

[pugsville]

American slave owners in the South said the same about their subjects.



1. Most of them weren't expelled. Most FLED, remember. It's not fair to exaggerate, remember. If you want you can pretend 100% were expelled as opposed to 10%, etc, but that's you being a propagandist to say the least. If the Arab insurgency hadn't happened Irgun & Lehi would not have had the excuse they needed. They got it & you blame the partition itself, instead of the Arab leadership for treason against their government? Israel was not founded ON expulsion. That happened afterwards and in in SOME Arab towns & villages.

"I accept the existence of Israel and the 1967 borders. but you have recognise how we got were we have. by racist colonisation in which a great wrong was done to the Palestinian population"

That only happened in 1967. The UN creating two states in Palestine is not 'colonisation'. It is the UN using its legal authority to pass a resoltuon to create two states. And it's not consistent with your claim to accept the existence of Israel if you want the FULL implementation of the Palestinian's inflated right of return; an Arab majority would mean Hamas would win the election and both states merge by default & all Jews, not just Israeli Jews that immigrated there but those BORN there, either expelled or KILLED.

3. The basis wasn't 'diplomacy'. You seem to have forgotten the resolution was based on a UN Commission. It recommended partition. Then the diplomacy occurred to prepare for a resolution debate in the UNGA. What happened afterwards is irrelevant, because it already was in the air that separation of Palestine by partition is the conclusion the Commission reached because the two communities were moving apart. For cultural reasons, politics & TERRORISM from the 1920s-30s & on into the 40s.

We're not just talking about terror going on in the 1990s with suicide bombings & other attacks, but efforts to dictate to the League of Nations & Later UN on what should happen to the region. Terrorist radicals on both sides with expulsion in their minds & rhetoric.

Painting the Jews & then Israels post 1948 as somehow 100% wrong and responsible is ahistorical BS. AS well as that the Zionist movement was 'committed' to expulsion. A personal view is not the same thing as an official position. The views of some people on the fringes, that weren't even active in Zionist group meetings....you're engaging in hype & grandstanding for their benefit. Armchair intellectuals sitting in a room giving an interview, that's not the same thing as a commitment and so it wasn't. Zionism was a left wing, secular and internationalist idea. It still is, despite the post-1977 right-wing tainting of it.

Morris says that transfer was a central concept of zionists thought, that Ben grunion was committed deliver in transfer and tat in 1948 'transfer was in the air'. they was a common belief in transfer and it was accepted as nesscary for the creation of Israel. the jewish acceptance of partition was merely we'll take this now and that later, 1948 the zionists were always going to invade the Palestinian partition and attempt to conquer as much as possible. ben Gurion was a committed expansionist , which was the reason for the 1956 war and part of the 1967 thinking.

expulsion was nessacary. what would have the zionists done if the arab population had remained in place? withdrawn to an area where the jews would be a majority? if more had not fled more would have been expelled.

the irgun and lehni needed n excuse,

something like 30% were expelled and they were fleeing for their lives.
lode and ramble alone were 50-70,000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Pale ... _and_Ramle

the settlement of zionists immigrants through the mandate period was the colonisation that should not have been allowed. once there was large population of zionists jews , violence and civil war was always the inevitable result. this immigration was only possible by force.

the conflict was caused by Zionism 100% without zionism they would have been no conflict. no population would have accepted the mass immigration of a foreigners intent on setting up their own country. yeah the Palestinians reacted badly as would have any other population on the planet.

[wat0n]

Using that reasoning, i.e. that if one side had not wanted to get self-determination there would have been no conflict at all, one may as well say that had there been no Jews or no Palestinians there would have been no conflict either.

The truth though is that there could have been a peaceful solution had the Palestinian opposition to the al-Husseinis prevailed in the years before the bipartition vote. There were Palestinians who were willing to divide the land, so it isn't even true that no population would have behaved differently in that case.

It's not like peaceful partitions of dysfunctional states don't happen - they do. There was no reason of why couldn't have this been the case had the balance of power within Palestinian society been different.

[anasawad]

Fun fact. Saudi Arabia is only standing because your support. What a thing. Criminals stand together.
If you have any simple idea about history you would know that under the ottoman empire that lands were seperated into small states every where. Lebanon for example had 4 different districts one ran by Shia. One ran by Druze. One by Christians and one by Sunnis.
For Palestine the military was mostly Muslims but local communities and their affairs were handled locally by community leaders.
That only ended when Britain came in. And for Jews the conflicts only began when Ziomists started settling in in a closed areas. And shortly with occupation on thier side.
I mean obviously youre right. How could an occupation possibly lead to hatred right ??

And funny that you mentioned the Crusades. Did you know most people to die by the crusaders were actually Christian ?? Since the areas targetted were mostly christian areas and many of the people who faught against the Crusades were Christians.


For mosques and others. Well other than your personal pets like Saudi arabia and ISIS. You can easily visit the many churches and temples of many religions all across the Islamic world.

And for the bullshit about rejecting Christian pilligrams from entering during the pre-crusade era. You realize that most the income the areas of palestine and Lebanon generated back then were from pilligrams right ?

For women. Well. Outside your pet countries in the gulf. I am glad to tell you that Muslim nations around the world have elected more female leaders than both Europe and the US and even Israel combined.
So yea. Women are so oppressed they're elected to run nations. Must horrifying oppression they go through.