"Why do Palestinians hate us?"

[middy]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If I go to a man's house, kill his children, rape his wife and then we get into a fight. The police come and use middy's logic of what will happen if I drop my weapons and what would happen if that man drops his weapons. They will obviously support me even though I was the one who invaded, murdered, and raped.

Wow. What version of history are you reading that you can even make that analogy?

The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations. It was not created out of Palestinian lands. It was created out of the Ottoman Empire, ruled for four hundred years by the Turks who lost it when they were defeated in World War I. There were no “Palestinian” lands at the time because there were no people claiming to be Palestinians. There were Arabs who lived in the region of Palestine who considered themselves Syrians. It was only after World War I that the present states of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq were also created – and also created artificially out of the Turkish Empire by the British and French victors. Jordan was created on about 80 percent of the Palestine Mandate, which was originally designated by the League of Nations as part of the Jewish homeland. Since then, Jews have been prohibited from owning property there. Two-thirds of its citizens are Palestinian Arabs, but it is ruled by a Hashemite monarchy.

In 1947, the UN partition plan mandated the creation of two states on the remaining 20 percent of the Palestine Mandate: the State of Israel for the Jews, and another state for the Arabs. The Arabs rejected their state, and launched a war against Israel. This is the primal cause of the Arab refugee problem.

The Arab refugees were roughly 725,000 people who fled because of the war that the Arab states – not the Palestinian Arabs -- started. The Arab states - dictatorships all - did not want a non-Arab state in the Middle East. The rulers of eight Arab countries whose populations vastly outnumbered the Jewish settlers in the Turkish Empire, initiated the war with simultaneous invasions of the newly created state of Israel on three fronts. Nascent Israel begged for peace and offered friendship and cooperation to its neighbors. The Arab dictators rejected this offer and answered it with a war of annihilation against the Jews. The war failed. But the state of war has continued uninterruptedly because of the failure of the Arab states –Saudi Arabia and Iraq in particular – to sign a peace treaty with Israel. To this day, the Arab states and the Palestinians refer to the failure of their aggression and the survival of Israel as an-Nakba – the catastrophe.

Had there been no Arab aggression, no war, and no invasion by Arab armies whose intent was overtly genocidal, not only would there have been no Arab refugees, but there would have been a state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza since 1948.

In the war, Israel acquired additional land. In the absence of a peace treaty between belligerents, the law of nations allows the annexation of an aggressor’s land after a conflict – although the land in question belonged to the Turks and then the World War I victors. Israel actually offered to return land it had acquired while defending itself against the Arab aggression in exchange for a formal peace. It made this offer during the Rhodes Armistice talks and Lausanne conference in 1949. The Arab rulers refused the land because they wanted to maintain a state of war in order to destroy the Jewish state. Had Israel’s offer been accepted, there could have been prompt and just resolution to all the problems that have afflicted the region since. The only problem that wouldn’t have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Arabs was their desire to obliterate the state of Israel.

After their victory, Israel passed a law that allowed Arab refugees to re-settle in Israel provided they would sign a form in which they renounced violence, swore allegiance to the state of Israel, and became peaceful productive citizens. During the decades of this law’s tenure, more than 150,000 Arab refugees have taken advantage of it to resume productive lives in Israel. Jews do not have a similar option to become citizens of Arab states from which they are banned.

It should be completely obvious to any reasonable and fair-mind*ed observer of this history, therefore, that it was not Israel that caused the Arab refugee problem, nor Israel that obstructed its solution.

On the contrary, the Arab refugee problem was the direct result of the aggression by the Arab states, and their refusal after failing to obliterate Israel to sign a formal peace, or to take care of the Arab refugees who remained outside Israel’s borders.

-- David Meir-Levi

[piercehawkeye45]

Of course a Zionist will romanaticize Israel's history.

The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations. It was not created out of Palestinian lands. It was created out of the Ottoman Empire, ruled for four hundred years by the Turks who lost it when they were defeated in World War I. There were no “Palestinian” lands at the time because there were no people claiming to be Palestinians. There were Arabs who lived in the region of Palestine who considered themselves Syrians.

This is the biggest load of propaganda shit I have ever read. He completely avoids that fact that people were living there and Israel forced them to leave. The people that were living in Palestine were not misplaced Syrians, they have been living in that area for ten thousand years so no matter what they called themselves, they still were living there and Israel took away their homes.

And define a peaceful process. I wouldn't consider the Lehi peaceful. Why didn't the UN and Israel listen to the refusal by both Palestinians and the surrounding Arab states?

The Arab refugees were roughly 725,000 people who fled because of the war that the Arab states – not the Palestinian Arabs -- started.

If this is true, why were Palestinians leaving a year BEFORE the war happened. And, there was civil war caused by the Palestinians before the war from the neighboring states so don't pull it was the surrounding Arabs states doing something that the Palestinians didn't want shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Pa...7_-_March_1948

Yes, the war was started by the Arabs states and not Israel but that doesn't mean anything. The Arab states repeatably denied Israel's right to exist and they their intentions were obviously known before Israel was established. It is like British telling Germany that if they attacked annexed France, Britain would declare war on Germany and then Germany annexes France and goes crying that Britain was the instigator of the whole war. The whole conflict could have been avoided if Israel was not placed in Palestine.

Nascent Israel begged for peace and offered friendship and cooperation to its neighbors.

This is the biggest load of shit I've ever seen. If they wanted peace they shouldn't have gone there in the first place. The US can not ask the insurgents to stop attacking them since the US is an occupying force. Israel is an occupying force and should not have been there to begin with.

Had there been no Arab aggression, no war, and no invasion by Arab armies whose intent was overtly genocidal, not only would there have been no Arab refugees, but there would have been a state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza since 1948.

Once again, why were Palestinians leaving one year BEFORE the war? Oh, so if Arabs didn't start the war then Israel wouldn't have illegally occupied the West Bank and Gaza too. That makes it sound like the Arabs forced Israel to take those things...

In the war, Israel acquired additional land. In the absence of a peace treaty between belligerents, the law of nations allows the annexation of an aggressor’s land after a conflict – although the land in question belonged to the Turks and then the World War I victors. Israel actually offered to return land it had acquired while defending itself against the Arab aggression in exchange for a formal peace. It made this offer during the Rhodes Armistice talks and Lausanne conference in 1949. The Arab rulers refused the land because they wanted to maintain a state of war in order to destroy the Jewish state. Had Israel’s offer been accepted, there could have been prompt and just resolution to all the problems that have afflicted the region since. The only problem that wouldn’t have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Arabs was their desire to obliterate the state of Israel.

After their victory, Israel passed a law that allowed Arab refugees to re-settle in Israel provided they would sign a form in which they renounced violence, swore allegiance to the state of Israel, and became peaceful productive citizens. During the decades of this law’s tenure, more than 150,000 Arab refugees have taken advantage of it to resume productive lives in Israel. Jews do not have a similar option to become citizens of Arab states from which they are banned.

All of this can be explained by Israel should not have been there in the first place. If I make the first indirect move and then try to make peace after the other guys retaliate I can look like the good guy as well.

[DanaC]

You can lead a whore to Vassar, but you can't make her think.

I'm only a whore if I charge right?......

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by DanaC

What would happen if Palestinians swore off violence and sold off all their weapons? They'd be defenceless against Israeli aggression.

They are in that position now, silly. An impoverished country with a few rockets here and there, versus the third most powerful military in the world.

If Israel wanted to do whatever it wanted, it certainly could. Meanwhile a non-violent Palestinean people would be just about the most powerful force on the world. We patiently await the Palestinian Ghandi who can figure that out.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If Israel wanted to do whatever it wanted, it certainly could. Meanwhile a non-violent Palestinean people would be just about the most powerful force on the world. We patiently await the Palestinian Ghandi who can figure that out.

I would like for that to happen, but that would involve much sacrifice that wouldn't guarantee a reward. Outside help and attention for Palestinians is very small and what would be worse than them not doing that would be them doing that and no one noticing.

[DanaC]

If Israel wanted to do whatever it wanted, it certainly could.

And indeed does, on a regular basis. Whilst the rest of the world looks on impervious to the suffering of damn near an entire nation reduced to living in permanent refugee 'camps', Israel does what it wants to do. Build a 'security' wall that actually splits farmers from their farms? Fire rockets into crowded market places with utter disregard for innocent civilians? Shoot and kill foreign journalists despite their having identified themselves? Harrass and abuse Palestinian civilians at the check points that effectively imprison whole communities? Block roads to the point that ambulances cannot pass? Bulldoze civilians' houses on the loose rationale that Hamas have been building tunnels underneath? (no need to ensure people leave the house, if a pregnant woman decides to risk herself and her baby by refusing to leave that's her business right?)

Israel does what it wants and the world looks on.

[Undertoad]

You need to know that most of what you have posted is utter bullshit. Stop watching the fucking BBC already.

[DanaC]

So the BBC isn't trustworthy on this issue but your news sources are?

[Undertoad]

Yup.

But please, if you don't believe me, consider the BBC's own commission on bias.

And despite that, they are still fibbing.

[DanaC]

Good job I mainly get my news from Channel 4 News then

[edit] I read the article and found this interesting:

Although its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial, the inquiry says the BBC allowed itself to be hijacked by Geldof, the U2 singer Bono, and Curtis, who urged Tony Blair to pressure world leaders to alleviate poverty in developing countries.

Not exactly screaming bias as the BBC's normal way of reporting. [/edit]

[queequeger]

It's kind of important to point out that a journalist who claims total impartiality can only be lying. I'd rather have a news source that actually addresses their faults and attempts to fix them than one that claims it is 'fair and balanced' every 45 seconds while simultaneously running taglines that read "Obama = Terrorist!?" and "Dems supporting hate speech?"

Major US news sources (the TV, that is) have turned disgusting over the past several years, and that's impossible to deny.

[yesman065]

I agree quee - Gotta take it all with a grain of salt. The "big three" are just awful. Unfortunately there are many sheep who blindly listen and take their words as gospel. I try to get some inpt from all the outlets and then also some independents as well before attempting to formulate an opinion now.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Of course a Zionist will romanaticize Israel's history.

Romanticize....romance.
Romance.....love.
Love.....sex.
Sex....somebody's getting fucked.

[amybaby2020]

"But even then, as with the Arafat example, support is one thing... having a culture that will do something productive with it, is another. They were given a University! They use it to teach bomb-making methods. They were given television stations! They use them to indoctrinate the kids in hate. They were given loads and loads of money! They used it to buy munitions. They were given the vote! They voted for Hamas."

I AGREE big time here

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Of course a Zionist will romanaticize Israel's history.

An interesting bit of history you may be interested in, deals with one way that the middle east maps look the way they do and who influenced them. There is a bit in there about Israel as well.:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200706/woman-iraq