[GreenGoblin]

Man.. didn't i just answer that? An Arab minority in Israel was bad for Israel, not helpfull in any way. But those that would have stayed, like the Arab Israelis today, are citizens of a democratic country and enjoy any right a Jewish citizen has. They are not "occupied" like the West bank today, thats not what the partition had in mind for the Palestinians staying in Israel's area. Again though, they can move a few miles and be in their country if they would have wanted to.

The exact number of Palestinians immigrating is debateable by historians. Some say it was insignificant, some say it was 300,000 starting from the 19th century. With the immigrants having crazy birth rates too, it covers a large portion of palestinians.

Your statments seem to be repeating themselves, only reaking of hatered a bit more every time. If you want to continue, respond to my replies

[pugsville]

Why was the proposed Jewish larger? Why were more Palestinians than Jews to be under 'foreign rule"
Your statement " By the deal, almost all of the Palestinians would have lived in their Palestinian state" is untrue, 1/3 of Palestinians would have been in the Jewish state. As the vast majority of Palestinians had been living in their areas for much much longer than they mostly teh very recently arrived Jewish immigrants why could the Jews been moved ?

The Proposed Partition was manifestly unfair. It only passed through bribery, blackmail and threats.

The Refugees were forced to leave by terror and force. They didnt have the option of staying, to Say "if they had stayed", is wrong "if they had not been forced to leave". If the population had not been forced to leave there would have been the majority at the end of the 1948. For the Zionists to achieve their aims, expulsion or suppression of rights was necessary,

Arab-Israelis face a fair bit of marginalization and discrimination.

Only Zionists propagandist without credibility claim there was any massive Arab migration. No reputable Historian claims that. Repeated Zionists propaganda memes with no basis or substance in fact or annoying.

[GreenGoblin]

Yea, I was unaware it was 1/3 of the then Palestinians. On the other hand I mentioned a lot of stuff you don't care to address so stick with whatever you want. You don't look like open minded type to even look at your facts.

The Proposed Partition was manifestly unfair. It only passed through bribery, blackmail and threats.

The Refugees were forced to leave by terror and force. They didnt have the option of staying, to Say "if they had stayed", is wrong "if they had not been forced to leave". If the population had not been forced to leave there would have been the majority at the end of the 1948. For the Zionists to achieve their aims, expulsion or suppression of rights was necessary,

Arab-Israelis face a fair bit of marginalization and discrimination.

Only Zionists propagandist without credibility claim there was any massive Arab migration. No reputable Historian claims that. Repeated Zionists propaganda memes with no basis or substance in fact or annoying.

And here's the proof. So much wrong. Are you aware some of this isn't even debatable?

[rmadison]

Immigration - there was no massive Arab migration into Palestine. The Population is within the rough parameters of growth rates and the data we have. It's simply a propagandist claim by those who which to invalidate the Palestinians of being treated fairly,

For this idiocy alone there should be a rule that you cannot post on this subject again. To even begin to pretend there was not massive arab immigration is about as laughable a claim as can be found. There were even people from MY fucking country, Turkey, who had moved there to work on jewish farms and plots. There are so many people talking about this situation without a shred of facts behind them, its hilarious.

[pugsville]

OK Folks present your evidence of massive Arab migration. Been q\around this many times oin this board no one has produced any evidence to support this theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographi ... _Palestine
"It estimated that unrecorded immigration during that period may have amounted to 9,000 Jews and 4,000 Arabs.[53] It also gave the fraction of persons living in Palestine in 1931 who were born outside Palestine: Muslims, 2%; Christians, 20%; Jews, 58%."

4000 unrecorded Arab immigrants between 1922-1931 so much for Arabs flocking to Palestine for opportunities created by Jewish settlement.

the article does include the 300,000 estimate
"estimates on the scope of Arab immigration to Palestine during this period range from insignificant numbers to almost 300 000"

note the 300,000 has no reference or citation to support it. Any discussion of sources and demographers rejects the massive immigration theory.

[LehmanB]

Only Zionists propagandist without credibility claim there was any massive Arab migration.

Arabs claim this too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbuM91PeSOs

[GreenGoblin]

http://www.theettingerreport.com/OpEd/G ... rabs-.aspx

http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm

http://www.newswithviews.com/israel/israel14.htm

http://www.wnd.com/2001/04/8985/


And a book: The Palestinian people (by a historian )
http://www.google.co.il/books?hl=iw&lr= ... ns&f=false

These are the areas where pro Palestinian and pro Israeli historians disagree on facts.

[LehmanB]

There is somehing more-

many tribes and families claim to have an origin around.

Very few claim to be old Jews who converted or rooted. In fact, this is impossible to prove there were sugnificant amount of Arabs here before Zionism.

We do know the growth rate of Arabs in Israel was the highest to the region.

We do know there is onstant positive Arab immigration to Israel and Jewish areas all the time. (today).

we do know there is alwasy large Arab immigration in the middle east to where the money is.

We do know the Arab population around Jewish areas have grown by hundrends percents. Now - is it all internal immigration inside Israel, or also regional?

We do know that Brits have claimed besides statistics of shift of Arab growth closer to Jewish regions, also claimed that 100,000 Arabs immigrated between 22-31.

We do know that in 1840 the Egyptians ruled here and claimed for immigration and settling of this region due to desolation here.

We do know that many in different regions in Israel tehre are different roots. In the shores it is more Egyptian; in the north it is more syrian.

We also know that this was a crossroad betweed Saudia, Damascus, Egypt, where all is few miles distance.

And most of all- dismiss everything Arab families say, old Zionists say about their enviornment, about descriptions on Israel, about the current behaviour of Arabic movement, and about reason, and instead sticking that there isn't enough academic research to prove a direct immigration besides the 100,000 Brits have directly recorded in one decade, is unreliable and it is itself non academic. And again- there is no proof the Arabs here have roots here, besides few tribes who do claim so (believing to their own words that they were Jews or they were here- these guys are few).

[pugsville]

Yes whole bunch of links to propaganda sites really piffle and dribble, As for the book gives quotes and references, page numbers it's pretty pointless to just add the book without any context.

There was no significant Arab immigration during the Mandate period, We have the census information and we have the births and deaths reported each year by the British to the league of Nations, the growth rate from the births and deaths pretty much means there could only be a very very small amount of Arab migration. There is no doubt. the figures are there it simply does not allow for any.

It;s a LIE. it;s a falsification of history by Zionist zealots who have no respect for the truth. Why are the so many Zonists on the board so bad at history, so guilable and posting propaganda. IS the Zionist historical case so poor, so unconving the only way to make it creidble are is repeated lies.

[LehmanB]

We have to disagree then.
You have no ground yourself on suggesting they have sugnificant roots.

You dismiss what their families say (relying on mere academic research alone) yet you dismiss also these researches since they are propogandous in your eyes.

According to the growthrate there is rather sugnifficant growth near Jewsh regions. (are they outsiders or internal immigrat- remember the region is highly small and very close to Syria and Egypt). According to the total growthrate Brits have count in their imaginary border- it is smaller growthrate gap and can be a gap of a fifth. But I think its more. And also, there was a settling before the Brits have come.

And, there is Egyptian link in Gaza (in dialect an dpperance), and Syrian link in the north in apperance and dialect.

Anyhow, dismiss what you like, since of course either its talking of tribes, writers or witnesses which you dismiss, or academic researches which you dismiss too, Cause its propogandous. Yet for the opostite claim- for their strong roots here and no immigration for they have been here for generations, you lack any base yourself. So hey, we have reached a dead end.

[Buzz62]

I am glad we agree on the basics then.
However, I think you missread the Arab population of the early to mid 20th century. And I'm not talking about the fact they were far from being a unified faction you can orderly negotiate with, I'm talking about their plain outright violant nature. Riots, murders and raids where a normality for the Palestinians at the time. Their thoughts about zionism where hardhanded and could not be negotiated with. Some Arab leaders actually embraced the zionist idea though, the palestinians didn't. Sort of like pugsville here, he thinks armed stuggle was inevitable and there was no other way, so did they.The moderate voices you hear from the Arab world today, the way i see it, is mostly western culture influence as well as improving living conditions. Palestinians at the time lived in horrible conditions that resembles many places in Africa today. I can't imagine anything that could have been done to win them over before the independance war.

"A Land without a People for a People without a Land" was a phrase mostly used in the 19th century when modern zionism began, and was relevant until somewhere in the early 20th century. Ottoman Palestine had about 250,000 Palestinians in 1800, less then 500,000 Palestinians by the end of the 19th century and close to 1.5 million Palestinians in 1947. You can clearly see they had immigration just as well but more importantly to the phrase, the land was actually almost unpopulated when modern zionism began.

For thousands of years Christians, Jews and Muslims lived in relative peace in Palestine. The Jews lived mostly in and around Jerusalem, and their focus was on studying their holy scriptures in the area of the ancient Jewish temple destroyed by the Romans almost two thousand years previously. The Christians also were mostly located around Jerusalem which was where their Lord, Jesus Christ had lived and died. The Muslims were in both the urban areas such as Jerusalem but also in the rural areas in small agricultural villages. Palestine also was a holy area for the Muslims because Mohammed, their spiritual father had travelled there as well.

And for thousands of years the area had been invaded and conquered by one group after another. The latest conqueror before the coming of the modern Europeans was the Ottoman Empire (from Turkey). Thus, because of the many invasions, and because the area was a trading crossroads between Asia, Europe and Africa, the Palestinian people had many cultural influences. But the area had been in relative peace since the Ottoman Empire had taken over in the 1500's.

http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/israelmilitaryorders/essays/israelimilitaryordersessay.htm

I can find no proof that the Palestinians lived in horrible conditions.
However...I can find this interesting nugget...

Even though the Jews and Palestinians had lived in relative peace as tribal neighbors in the area of Palestine for almost 2000 years, it was the words and actions of the European Zionists beginning in the late 1800's that provoked Arab animosity and the beginning of the conflict that plagues the world to this day. The Zionists wanted to create their own country in Palestine in which they would dominate, and not in cooperation with the Palestinian people who already lived there. Thus, in order to gain support from the European nations that dominated the world at that time, they spoke very derisively of the Palestinian people in order to convince the European leaders that the Palestinian people did not deserve to have equal say in the running of the new country, and even to rationalize the removal of the native Palestinian people to nearby Arab countries so that the Jews could have the land to themselves (they called this "transfer"). Thus, they said things such as that the Palestinian people were dirty and uncivilized, and that they were not a real cultural grouping with a real claim to the land they lived on.

Then when the European Zionists actually began arriving in Palestine and developing communities, the major organizations (the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish National Fund) kicked the Palestinian farmers off their lands and then forbade the Jews they settled there from even employing any non-Jews. The result was "ethnic cleansing" where a people were removed and banished from their ancestral lands based solely on their membership in a specific ethnic group.

This was very threatening and offensive to the native Palestinian people who lived in Palestine, and to the surrounding Arab nations.

http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/israelmilitaryorders/essays/israelimilitaryordersessay.htm

It appears many of your beliefs are simply propaganda that you may have bought into.
Not your fault though. Misinformation is quite common.

My point remains...the Zionist movement CAUSED this conflict with its lies and arrogance.
Did the Jewish people "deserve" a homeland?
They had one...EASTERN EUROPE!
Becuase, as a wise native Canadian Indian once said to me;
"You Are The Dirt You Came From."

[pugsville]

The People who have actually done the research all agree they was no large scale immigration. Only propagandists disagree.

It's 100% solid there was none during the mandate period. Which covers the period of major Zionist settlement so that drove immigration is 100% debunked. We have the British Census information and we have the registered births and deaths year by year for the mandate. This figures mean there was extremely little Arab migration during the mandate.

[GreenGoblin]

It is true there was coexistence for a thousand years between Jews and Muslims in the area but it stopped around the 19th century.

Here is the 1929 riots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots

The riots took the form in the most part of attacks by Arabs on Jews accompanied by destruction of Jewish property. During the week of riots from 23 to 29 August 133 Jews were killed by Arabs and 339 others were injured, while 110 Arabs were killed and 232 were injured, most of them by the British police while trying to suppress the riots.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

The Shaw Commission found that the fundamental cause of the violence "without which in our opinion disturbances either would not occurred or would not have been little more than a local riot, is the Arab feeling of animosity and hostility towards the Jews consequent upon the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future."[10]

More from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_ ... oman_times

In 1856 the Ottomans issued the Hatt-i Humayun, guaranteeing equal rights for all Ottoman subjects. Despite this, Muslims kept viewing Jews as dhimmi's: people protected by, but subordinate to Muslims. This changed when, due to Jewish immigration and land purchase, they realised that Zionism wanted to make a Jewish homeland in at least part of Palestine. Both Christians and Muslims were worried.[8]

In April 1920, Amin al-Husseini and other Arab leaders organised the 1920 Jerusalem riots where 10 people were killed and 250 others wounded. Several women were raped and two synagogues fired. Jews were particularly shocked by these events and viewed the events as a pogrom.[82] Next year, on April 1921, Arabs of Jaffa attacked Jews in the city, particularly around the Red House whose inhabitants were massacred. 95 people were killed and 219 injured. As a consequence of the events, thousands of Jewish residents fled from Jaffa to Tel Aviv. A climate of mutual suspicious and hatred aroused and grew. The decision to create the Haganah, the Jewish self-defense movement that will become the root of the Israeli army was also taken just after these events[83]

In 1920, the pro-Zionist Muslim National Associations was established by the mayor of Haifa, Hassan Bey Shukri and Sheikh Musa Hadeib, head of the farmers' party of Mt. Hebron.[84][85][86] In July 1921, Shukri sent a telegram to the British government, declaring support for the Balfour Declaration and Jewish immigration to British Mandate Palestine:

Religious tension over Western Wall, an international economic crisis and nationalist tension over Jewish immigration led to the 1929 Palestine riots. In these religious-nationalist riots Jews were massacred in Hebron and the survivors were expelled from the town. Devastation also took place in Safed and Jerusalem. This violence was directed against the non-Zionist orthodox communities; Zionist communities were able to defend themselves and had established defence organizations. As a result the orthodox community in Palestine was increasingly dependent on Zionist support.

We both know what happened in the 30's up to the the all out war in 1947.

Something else interesting i found here though

In 1920, the pro-Zionist Muslim National Associations was established by the mayor of Haifa, Hassan Bey Shukri and Sheikh Musa Hadeib, head of the farmers' party of Mt. Hebron.[84][85][86] In July 1921, Shukri sent a telegram to the British government, declaring support for the Balfour Declaration and Jewish immigration to British Mandate Palestine:

We strongly protest against the attitude of the said delegation concerning the Zionist question. We do not consider the Jewish people as an enemy whose wish is to crush us. On the contrary. We consider the Jews as a brotherly people sharing our joys and troubles and helping us in the construction of our common country. We are certain that without Jewish immigration and financial assistance there will be no future development of our country as may be judged from the fact that the towns inhabited in part by Jews such as Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa, and Tiberias are making steady progress while Nablus, Acre, and Nazareth where no Jews reside are steadily declining.[3]

As'ad Shukeiri, a pro-Zionist Muslim scholar (‘alim) of the Acre area widely known for his opposition to the Palestinian Arab national movement, followed the same tendency. He met routinely with Zionist officials and had a part in pro-Zionist Arab organizations, publicly rejecting Haj Amin al-Husseini's use of Islam against Zionism.[87][88]

Its easy to say there was no conflict if there was no Zionism. But without Zionism how could you answer the Jewish question? Saying Eastern europe can do fine just wouldn't do. The damage that place did to Jews is by far the damage coexistence can do for the local Arabs.

[Buzz62]

GG your own post exhibits how Zionism caused the conflict.
As for this "Jewish question"...it was not the responsibility of ANYONE to give up their land, in order to solve this "Jewish question".
The Jews of Eastern Europe had land...lots of it I suspect.
They had their own communities...much like we now have Chinatown.
Hell they even had their own language.

Your argument shifts the burden of the Holocaust, on to the Palestinian people.
Now I ask you...was that fair?

[GreenGoblin]

There is no fair. How can it be fair that anyone being born Jewish should be subjected to a lifetime of strong antisemitism and be a citizen to a country that cannot protect him when he needs it? (make no misstake, living in these closed communities gave little protections against the progromes, anti semitic laws or eventually the Nazis)
On the other hand, how can it be fair that a small piece of land be taken from Arabs living in it? It honestly can't. But I ask you to see the collective good and wight the pros against the cons.
If you see an alternative history that Jews stayed in Eastern Europe, do you see the level of antisemitism similar to the one we see there today? Without a strong political power who do you think would back the Jews in times of need and provide a constant protection?

[Buzz62]

There is no fair. How can it be fair that anyone being born Jewish should be subjected to a lifetime of strong antisemitism and be a citizen to a country that cannot protect him when he needs it? (make no misstake, living in these closed communities gave little protections against the progromes, anti semitic laws or eventually the Nazis)
On the other hand, how can it be fair that a small piece of land be taken from Arabs living in it? It honestly can't. But I ask you to see the collective good and wight the pros against the cons.
If you see an alternative history that Jews stayed in Eastern Europe, do you think the level of antisemitism there would be similar to the one we see there today? Without a strong political power who do you think would back the Jews in times of need and provide a constant protection?

I believe the horror and shame felt by the western allies, would most certainly have produced a favourable environment for all Europeans, especially the Jews. I think the laws set down after the Holocaust would have been heavily weighted with anti-racist intent. And I think that the Euro-Jews would have faced much less resistance by staying right at home. MUCH less.

Look, this "Jewish question", is not something anyone can yoke another man with.
Hell I'm still trying to figure out WHY its still such a "question".
A people "nomaded" about the mid-east and europe for some millennia...they settle, flourish, even develop their own language and distinct culture. Then through a twist of fates, find themselves staring the very land they'd originally been exiled from, right in the puss. But that was 2000 years ago. There are inhabitants with towns and a social structure...much like that of a "nation"...oh and who happen to have already stated that they want their own autonomy...
So these euro-jews decide to "bend" the facts a bit, and move in?

Tell me...because quite frankly, I just do not understand this at all...WHY do the Jewish people attempt to segregate themselves from any community they happen to "nomad" to? To me, this is a self-destructive practice.

[rmadison]

It is true there was coexistence for a thousand years between Jews and Muslims in the area but it stopped around the 19th century....Its easy to say there was no conflict if there was no Zionism. But without Zionism how could you answer the Jewish question? Saying Eastern europe can do fine just wouldn't do. The damage that place did to Jews is by far the damage coexistence can do for the local Arabs.

It is incorrect to claim that there was PEACEFUL co-existence between arab muslims/muslims and jews over the past 1,000 years, and zionism has nothing to do with it. Even a basic reading of historical research by scholars such as Bernard Lewis show a history of anti-jewish pogroms, depending upon the type of leadership present in the arab muslim/muslim country. These are not in dispute.

[GreenGoblin]

True, but it was more rare in the past. Especially because Jews where second class citizens so everyone was happy. The violance starts when Jews are a threat

[OllytheBrit]

Tell me...because quite frankly, I just do not understand this at all...WHY do the Jewish people attempt to segregate themselves from any community they happen to "nomad" to? To me, this is a self-destructive practice.

It's a natural human instinct to seek out ones own 'brethren' and live amongst them rather than amongst aliens, that's why. You would probably do likewise?

[LehmanB]

I have read a paper suggest there were 100,000 Arab immigrants in a decade.

Brit paper.