[dcomplex]

Um, Buzz62, have you ever heard of the Kielce pogrom?

The Kielce Pogrom was an outbreak of violence against the Jewish community centre in the city of Kielce, Poland on July 4, 1946, initiated by Polish Communist armed forces (LWP, KBW, GZI WP)[1] and continued by a mob of local townsfolk. Following a false tale of child kidnapping, including blood libel[2] which led to a police investigation, violence broke out which resulted in the killing of 42 Jews. Polish Communist courts later tried and condemned nine people to death in connection with the incident.

There is general academic agreement that the massacre was instigated by Soviet-backed Communist security forces, possibly for propaganda purposes to discredit Poland's anti-Communism and maintain totalitarian control over the country. Because the top-secret case files were destroyed, there is an ongoing academic inquiry and debate regarding secret coordination with the NKVD by the Polish authorities.[3][4]

As the deadliest pogrom against Polish Jews after World War II, the incident was a significant point in the post-war history of Jews in Poland. It took place only a year after the end of World War II and the Holocaust, shocking Jews in Poland, many Poles, and the international community. It has been considered a catalyst for the flight of most remaining Polish Jews who survived the Holocaust away from Poland.[5]

[Buzz62]

I recall someone mentioning giving Israel's land to arabs wouldn't satisfy them for long. In a way i agree with that statement but what does it have to do with Jews leaving europe after WW2?

Nothing really.
I was commenting to both you and the other person.

What i find curious is the idea that the Jewish people could not have remained in Europe after the war.
Is that what you were saying?

[Buzz62]

Um, Buzz62, have you ever heard of the Kielce pogrom?

Ya and?
200 new-comers show up in town, and the social resistance was...over the top.
Look I'm not gonna engage in a debate in the social mechanisms in play here, but are you saying they couldn't have just stayed put?
Maybe moved to another town or something? Why the exodus? Who told them a veritable sand-box in Arabia, was the place to be?

[GreenGoblin]

What i find curious is the idea that the Jewish people could not have remained in Europe after the war.
Is that what you were saying?

Sort of. I'm saying Jews needed a country after WW2. To ensure not being a dependent minority in such a racist Europe.
Like I said earlier, the racism has its ups and downs and the only safe way to prevent something like that in the future, as well as the everyday antisemitism (that was and is also deadly) is independence.

[pugsville]

does not give them the right to impose their minority Zionist rule by force ob the native population of Palestine. I can see the historical roots of Zionism , other nations failing to protect their Jewish citizens and the logical response of wanting their own nation. The problem is Palestine was NOT empty and the Jewish Nation could only be achieved by suppressing and destroying the Palestinian nation.

[Buzz62]

Sort of. I'm saying Jews needed a country after WW2. To ensure not being a dependent minority in such a racist Europe.
Like I said earlier, the racism has its ups and downs and the only safe way to prevent something like that in the future, as well as the everyday antisemitism (that was and is also deadly) is independence.

OK...not sure I agree completely...but ya I get the line of thinking.
The results have left little to be desired...
Its fairly obvious that the Arab people of the land of Palestine had previously had a deal with Britain for their land, and that as the immigration began, there were issues. So the Poles moved from their hereditary family homes, granted in a state of cultural shock, to a place that was erupting into the never-ending war we are blessed with.

Interesting idea...

[GreenGoblin]

In a way you are right. You can call it the right decision vs the best decision. Think back, what could have been the best salution? Finding a little populated "bad" peace of land of course. When modern zionism began inthe 19 century, the endless wars where not and could not be foreseen (hopefully not endless). There was still no such thing as a palestinian nationality. The current rullers where Ottoman and the land was mostly desserts and swamps. In general the whole area was very little populated and the arabs who did live there where mostly precieved as part of large Syria, or just Ottoman. So when the British empire offered the zionists Uganda, its understandable why they refused. Uganda actually seemed at least as hostile to oursiders then Ottoman Palestine, if not more. Seeing its such a tiny spot of "bad" land and that some current powers already favoured the idea, who can say it will be an endless war? The Palestinian nationality was born in response to the hard work put in the land making it fertile, the Jewish immigration that started with modern zionism and the British - french seperation of Arab mandates. But these three where also followed by rise in fashism in Europe and changing the zionism goal loacation was now off the tables. This land isn't a jackpot of oil, its such a small part of land that doesn't make 1% of the arab world. If they would have been willing to give it without forming the palestinian nationality and thousands of Arabs immigrating to the so called palestine there would be no wars. They saw us as european colonists instead of Jews being pushed to the edge in Europe. If they would have accepted to share in 1948, after being given a fair deal that included their control of Jerusalem, there would be no wars. The wars where the product of the Arab people's idea that they don't need to share anything or owe anything to any Europeans, as small and worthless as it is.

I still see making a country here as the best and right decision, but zionism marking its goal location here was by far a right decision. Too bad it didn't happen fast enough to prevent what happened in ww2.

[OllytheBrit]

Heisenberg.

This has been quite an interesting exchange, and has given me something to think about: it’s quite obvious that we’re coming from different directions (although I take strong exception to your charge that I’m a ‘cheerleader for Israeli air strikes’. But then you probably did at my jibe that 'you're not as smart as you think'? Well you are!), but despite that, our mutually predominant concern is for the civilian populations. But the unarguable fact of the matter remains, and it is that Hamas is the aggressor and Israel the respondent; and what is also unarguable is that if Hamas hadn’t instigated and perpetuated the violence, then the situation we’ve been discussing would never have been brought about, and none of the lives lost, nor what are probably horrendous injuries victims, would have been occasioned.

You asked what my answer to it is (sorry, I forgot to address that): well seeing that better men than me have failed to come up with one, primarily because Hamas stubbornly and continuously refuses point blank to participate in talks aimed at a temporary ceasefire (never mind a permanent one, such is its psychotic hatred of Israel and Israelis, exemplified by the declared intent to embark upon genocide in mitigating it), the only way it can be reconciled, if we’re talking about equability here(?), is this: Israel will have to disable its defence system, and then adopt an identical form of retaliation viz. return fire indiscriminately with their own missiles, and only stop when Hamas stops. If there’s any advantage in that measure at all for Israelis (apart from outsiders, who can't imagine what it's like to be living day to day as Israelis are having to, will stop bellyaching about disproportionality), it’s that they (the Israelis) won’t have to be on constant alert for shrapnel raining down from the sky whenever the Iron Dome destroys Hamas’ 100-a-day rockets. After all, what goes up must come down!

Finally, my ‘ad hominem’ attacks on you weren’t meant to be personal, they were merely exasperated challenges to some of your comments. I apologise – I always think of ad hominem attacks as being more along the lines of ‘name-calling’ and personal insults.

And as for the 'accede' definition . . . if I had an 'embarrassed' smiley I'd use it!

[Rich]

The obvious location for a Jewish homeland would have been and still is South Texas. The US stole Texas form the Confederacy. The American Texan slavers stole Texas from Mexico and the Spanish stole it from the Native Americans. The current owners have no claim to the land. Of course the reason Zionists don't push for that solution is that they know that they'd be told to fuck off and American support for Zionism would dry up in a moment. What about Kent and Sussex, OK a bit crowed, well northern Scotland, western Ireland.

The overwhelming majority of non Jewish Zionists in the West are hypocritical filth, who only support Zionism based on the condition that its not on their land.

Note: I'm no cheer leader for the Palestinians. I'm certainly not enthusiastic about the creation of another Muslim state where decent Pagans, Atheists and Christians are oppressed.

[pugsville]

There was no fair deal in 1948. It gave much more territory including much of the most fertile and developed areas to the Jewish state. While a 1/3 of teh Palestinian population was to have Jewish rule imposed only a tiny fraction of Jews were in teh reverse situation. Almost all areas in the Jewish state had a Palestinian majority. While almost all of the Palestinians had been living there for centuries most of the Jewish population were recent immigrants. Why should the Palestinians accept that the Zionists immigrants had a right to be there at at? And that this recent immigrants had the right to impose their rule on them? What nation is the world would accept immigrants with the plan of setting up their own state? The Idea that Palestinians should have accepted partition is deeply flawed. No one in that position would have. Zionism was and remains racist colonization that should not have been accepted.

[GreenGoblin]

There was no fair deal in 1948. It gave much more territory including much of the most fertile and developed areas to the Jewish state. While a 1/3 of teh Palestinian population was to have Jewish rule imposed only a tiny fraction of Jews were in teh reverse situation. Almost all areas in the Jewish state had a Palestinian majority. While almost all of the Palestinians had been living there for centuries most of the Jewish population were recent immigrants. Why should the Palestinians accept that the Zionists immigrants had a right to be there at at? And that this recent immigrants had the right to impose their rule on them? What nation is the world would accept immigrants with the plan of setting up their own state? The Idea that Palestinians should have accepted partition is deeply flawed. No one in that position would have. Zionism was and remains racist colonization that should not have been accepted.

I won't add the wiki explanations because the sources are all wrong but lets see what we have here:

Palestinian is yellow, Jewish is blue. The Jewish part gets the trade opportunity from the red sea and access to the Kineret, the small lake in the north on the Syrian boarder. The Palestinians get all the high grounds and the strategic advantage. They also get the the full control of all the historic and religious grounds, not to mention the practical control of an international Jerusalem. Of course they would want the "better" land now when all the swamps are gone and the desert being pushed back further south but it was all Zionist work remember? However, everything on the map south of Gaza was a huge desert so maybe the Palestinians didn't get the "bad part" after all.
Is this really that bad they should have went to an "endless war"? Look like a fair deal to me.

I already mentioned earlier why Zionism target this area. Peace will only happen when both sides try to see it from the other's prospective. Why should they let Israel be formed you ask? Because they came here for a reason the Palestinians rarely try to understand and because peace can benefit all parties. Too bad they chose war and lost though. Even more of a shame that they keep losing but never give up the violence.

[dcomplex]

There was no fair deal in 1948. It gave much more territory including much of the most fertile and developed areas to the Jewish state. While a 1/3 of teh Palestinian population was to have Jewish rule imposed only a tiny fraction of Jews were in teh reverse situation. Almost all areas in the Jewish state had a Palestinian majority. While almost all of the Palestinians had been living there for centuries most of the Jewish population were recent immigrants. Why should the Palestinians accept that the Zionists immigrants had a right to be there at at? And that this recent immigrants had the right to impose their rule on them? What nation is the world would accept immigrants with the plan of setting up their own state? The Idea that Palestinians should have accepted partition is deeply flawed. No one in that position would have. Zionism was and remains racist colonization that should not have been accepted.

The country's most fertile areas were the former swamps drained by Jewish pioneers. Of course they should be able to keep what they owned. As a matter of fact looking at grants of state land, the Jews got shafted since most of their terrotory is the Negev desert.

[pugsville]

Most Zionist settlement was on the better and more fertile land, all that disused swap and blooming the desert is just some much myth. This was because these areas where the most commercialized and in some ways the easiest to buy. Like so much of the History of Palestine in the last 100 odd years the Jewish myth is often accepted uncritically.

Why did the Jews get a greater area with a lesser population? Almost all the Jews in Palestine got Jewish rule. Only 1% of the Palestinian state was to be Jewish while 45% of the Jewish state would be Palestinian. Almost a 1/3 of Palestinians would be 'losers' of this partition and the Jewish 'losers' were only 10,000 (compared to 400,000 Palestinians). Even if you accept the both sides had equal claims. The Palestinians yet again were offered a massively raw deal.

No other population would have welcomed such immigration or accepted partition. Who would accept immigrants who plan to take over the place. No one. The Idea that the Palestinians were particularly unreasonable is just garbage. Israel argument for refuses the return of Palestinian refuges is that would change the demographics of the state, In this is accepted why did the Palestinians HAVE to accept the Jews in the mandate period?

[dcomplex]

You are totally frigging wrong. Jews were not allowed to buh farmland. They were only allowed to buy "waste" land that had collapsed terraces and swamps. It became the best land through great sacrifice of lives to malaria in order to drain swamps and rebuild terraces under EXTREME conditions.

[GreenGoblin]

Pugsville, you are ignoring everything said so far. Israel was never meant to be just independance for the Jews who imigrated before WW2, but for all the Jews around the world who do not wish to live as a minority anymore. By the deal, almost all of the Palestinians would have lived in their Palestinian state, the fact almost no jewish settlment would be left in this Palestine is only a benefit for them.

The work on making the land was made mostly by the Jewish National Fund. Feel free: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Nat ... tiref1_8-1

Again, all this "why should they accept this" talking is exactly why the wars can never end here. Its obvious you see only one side and know nothing about the other or why he does what he does. Maybe you feel that gap with crazy conspiracy theories like other forum members here?

[pugsville]

dcomplex as usual your understanding of the history is wrong. Land says restrictions were only brought intro the mandate relatively late, and were mostly evaded.

Why is the Jewish right to not live as a minority greater than Palestinian one? SO Jews living outside Palestine have a greater right to self determination than the actual population? Yes we cannot unbreak the egg but understanding how we got here is important. The line that the Arabs reacted badly started the conflict is piffle. Any population would have not accepted this Racist colonization by immigrants who would rule over them. The Partition the 'losers' those left as a minority in the other state Palestinians outnumbered the Jewish losers 40 to 1.

"By the deal, almost all of the Palestinians would have lived in their Palestinian state" Err 1/3 of the Palestinian population some 400.000 would be in the Jewish state. 2/3 is not almost all.

I understand the causes of Zionism and the reaction is pretty valid, being rejected by existing nations , forming their own is understandable. But this could only be done by imposing their rule on another group, Treating others as they themselves would refuse to be treated,,

[Buzz62]

In a way you are right. You can call it the right decision vs the best decision. Think back, what could have been the best salution? Finding a little populated "bad" peace of land of course. When modern zionism began inthe 19 century, the endless wars where not and could not be foreseen (hopefully not endless). There was still no such thing as a palestinian nationality. The current rullers where Ottoman and the land was mostly desserts and swamps. In general the whole area was very little populated and the arabs who did live there where mostly precieved as part of large Syria, or just Ottoman. So when the British empire offered the zionists Uganda, its understandable why they refused. Uganda actually seemed at least as hostile to oursiders then Ottoman Palestine, if not more. Seeing its such a tiny spot of "bad" land and that some current powers already favoured the idea, who can say it will be an endless war? The Palestinian nationality was born in response to the hard work put in the land making it fertile, the Jewish immigration that started with modern zionism and the British - french seperation of Arab mandates. But these three where also followed by rise in fashism in Europe and changing the zionism goal loacation was now off the tables. This land isn't a jackpot of oil, its such a small part of land that doesn't make 1% of the arab world. If they would have been willing to give it without forming the palestinian nationality and thousands of Arabs immigrating to the so called palestine there would be no wars. They saw us as european colonists instead of Jews being pushed to the edge in Europe. If they would have accepted to share in 1948, after being given a fair deal that included their control of Jerusalem, there would be no wars. The wars where the product of the Arab people's idea that they don't need to share anything or owe anything to any Europeans, as small and worthless as it is.

I still see making a country here as the best and right decision, but zionism marking its goal location here was by far a right decision. Too bad it didn't happen fast enough to prevent what happened in ww2.

For the most part...agreed.
We can quibble over who's hard work created the farmland and so on...but sure...I get the desire to leave Europe for some biblically fabled sandbox. HOWEVER...it is rather clear from an examination of the historical events, that the Poles and Germans and Russians and Czechs and Hungarians and Ukrainians...and the rest of the Ashkenazi regional Jewish population, arrived in another man's land with intent to make it their own. "The Jewish State".
Its an act of utmost arrogance that a foreign people "gleep" another man's home.
Imagine now, the Arab peoples of Palestine...and this includes Jews...make a deal with Britain to resist the Ottoman presence in the region, in order to aid in WWI efforts. These native inhabitants of the land...these SEMITIC PEOPLE.

OMG! What a devastating setback for existing Zionist plans!

And then, via backroom deals, and without agreement from these Palestinian people, the land is handed over to the Jewish people...and they begin to show up.

Once WWII is over, the Ashkenazi, who had really been the target of Hitler's Nazi movement unfortunately, these Eastern European Jews arrive in Palestine with every intent...a balled-faced sense of absolute entitlement...to take the land over.
There was no attempts to live WITH the Palestinians...including the Jewish Palestinians. No...it was "A Land without a People for a People without a Land." The very essence of this slogan must have been an affront to the sensibilities if the native people.
And then there's the rather indisputable argument that these Jewish immigrants WERE EUROPEAN!

IMO...

The Zionists "could" have made PALESTINE their homeland had they approached the migration and population with a due HUMILITY and sense of THANKFULNESS! Had the WELCOMED the Palestinian people into their communities and homes. Had they NOT simply taken land with such a sense of entitlement.

The Zionists never had the population nor the means to simply take it all. Had they just moved in with a military, and taken with overwhelming arms superiority, I doubt we'd be debating this right now. But they didn't, because they couldn't. So they attempted a colonial action by "buying" everything in sight. The showed up and moved in, and actively tried to make Palestine into theirs.

And people wonder WHY the Palestinian people are so worked up about it all...

It is/was...the NATURE of the migration, and perhaps even of the Ashenazi (Yidish) people themselves...who managed to create this whole situation.

That, my friend, is why we are debating these things still today.

[GreenGoblin]

Why is the Jewish right to not live as a minority greater than Palestinian one? SO Jews living outside Palestine have a greater right to self determination than the actual population? Yes we cannot unbreak the egg but understanding how we got here is important. The line that the Arabs reacted badly started the conflict is piffle. Any population would have not accepted this Racist colonization by immigrants who would rule over them. The Partition the 'losers' those left as a minority in the other state Palestinians outnumbered the Jewish losers 40 to 1.

"By the deal, almost all of the Palestinians would have lived in their Palestinian state" Err 1/3 of the Palestinian population some 400.000 would be in the Jewish state. 2/3 is not almost all.

I understand the causes of Zionism and the reaction is pretty valid, being rejected by existing nations , forming their own is understandable. But this could only be done by imposing their rule on another group, Treating others as they themselves would refuse to be treated,,

For one, Jewish nationalism existed way before the Palestinian one did, if it means anything to you. Look again at the partition, it actually gives the palestinians independance. The arab minority in Israel is far from being an occupied people, they are a minority living in a democracy. What was important in zionism was to live in a democracy that the majority of it are Jewish. If some of the Arab minority didn't like the idea then they can move a few miles away and live in a Palestinian majority country.

For the most part...agreed.
We can quibble over who's hard work created the farmland and so on...but sure...I get the desire to leave Europe for some biblically fabled sandbox. HOWEVER...it is rather clear from an examination of the historical events, that the Poles and Germans and Russians and Czechs and Hungarians and Ukrainians...and the rest of the Ashkenazi regional Jewish population, arrived in another man's land with intent to make it their own. "The Jewish State".
Its an act of utmost arrogance that a foreign people "gleep" another man's home.
Imagine now, the Arab peoples of Palestine...and this includes Jews...make a deal with Britain to resist the Ottoman presence in the region, in order to aid in WWI efforts. These native inhabitants of the land...these SEMITIC PEOPLE.

OMG! What a devastating setback for existing Zionist plans!

And then, via backroom deals, and without agreement from these Palestinian people, the land is handed over to the Jewish people...and they begin to show up.

Once WWII is over, the Ashkenazi, who had really been the target of Hitler's Nazi movement unfortunately, these Eastern European Jews arrive in Palestine with every intent...a balled-faced sense of absolute entitlement...to take the land over.
There was no attempts to live WITH the Palestinians...including the Jewish Palestinians. No...it was "A Land without a People for a People without a Land." The very essence of this slogan must have been an affront to the sensibilities if the native people.
And then there's the rather indisputable argument that these Jewish immigrants WERE EUROPEAN!

IMO...

The Zionists "could" have made PALESTINE their homeland had they approached the migration and population with a due HUMILITY and sense of THANKFULNESS! Had the WELCOMED the Palestinian people into their communities and homes. Had they NOT simply taken land with such a sense of entitlement.

The Zionists never had the population nor the means to simply take it all. Had they just moved in with a military, and taken with overwhelming arms superiority, I doubt we'd be debating this right now. But they didn't, because they couldn't. So they attempted a colonial action by "buying" everything in sight. The showed up and moved in, and actively tried to make Palestine into theirs.

And people wonder WHY the Palestinian people are so worked up about it all...

It is/was...the NATURE of the migration, and perhaps even of the Ashenazi (Yidish) people themselves...who managed to create this whole situation.

That, my friend, is why we are debating these things still today.

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.

[rmadison]

"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 50,000 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.

But don't you know, arabs, and everyone else for that matter, like all of south and central america, are allowed to immigrate/move to other places - but not jews, they aren't allowed. They are supposed to accept living in their ghettoes and taking it up the ass from their kindly muslim or european masters, including the occasional mass slaughter, pogrom or expulsion. But of course, the jew-hating filth will claim those amazing population rate increases were due to the incredible propagations of the arabs, who bred like rabbits - it was simply not possible that the vast majority moved from egypt, jordan and syria.

Just abject garbage.

[pugsville]

The Partition.l Why were far more Palestinians expected to live as a minority rather than Jews? The Partition did treat the aspirations of both groups equally. It was maximalist solution to the problem in favour of the Zionists.

Zionists rule of Palestinians lead to mass expulsion , ethnic cleansing and confiscation of land and property. Their rule was hardly inclusive, and was fairly brutal and racist.

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,