I Support Genocide

Don't worry. They're wrong, not you.

Larry,

You are a Jew. OF COURSE you support genocide! Have you learned nothing from the liberals?

 

Thanks for commenting, all. And thank you for the support.

Leauki, the thing is that I AM one of the Liberals. Pretty ironic, eh?

"Od yavo' shalom aleinu" as the song says.

Wiser words were never spoken.

But I am curious about your self proclamtion of Secular Humanism. From their web site, and from my previous understanding, the term and organization is not about acceptance of all religions (I dont see them not accepting it, just not professing any), but in the belief in "Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions"

Now there is nothing wrong with that. But it hardly qualifies as "We just don't think that we have a monopoly on a vision of God." Their beliefs mean unless they can prove God (something no one has been able to do since the dawn of recorded history), then they do not believe in God.

Your professed faith seems to be more in line with Unitarians than Secular Humanists. As I am neither (although I do believe as you do on the monopoly of a vision of God), I was just curious about your use of the term, and how it fits in with those who say they are according to their creed.

It is immaterial. If you are a Jew and disagree that attacking Jews and trying to murder them constitutes a genocide committed by the Jews, you are dead meat and evil.

Actual political opinions do not come into it. Most Zionists were socialists opposing wealthy local landlords. But that doesn't matter to today's "left".

 

Peace will still come on (upon) us?

We can hope... We must hope.

 

Incidentally, when liberals speak of "genocide", they mean this:

https://forums.joeuser.com/97234

Due to the word's similarity to the English word "genocide", it is often misunderstood.

 

Um . . . Wow.

Just wow.

Don't know what else to say to that.

What I don't get is how can Israel be accused of genocide when they only respond to some rockets aimed at them from Palestine? I don't believe Israel would harm anybody if the Arabs stopped attacking them first.

I believe Israel want sto live in peace with their Arab neighbors, unfortunately, the Arabs aren't as playing.

 

I'll be honest (unlike many people here) and admit that my view of Palestine and Israel is highly distorted by the media and as such i could quickly assume that the Israeli state has done little wrong during the entire conflict.

All i know for sure is the following, Palestinenian settlements are buldozed down and in their place  Israeli settlements are built. The rest of the stuff, for example who shoots who first is immeterial, why? Well quite simply because if a foreign goverment came into my town, bulldozed some buildings and built a settlement i'd be sure as hell willing to fight to take it back.

I don't consider people in your position as supporting genocide. I think most people are just generally unaware of what goes on because we rely so much on the media for our source of information and the media is able to dictate which issues it reports and in how much detail as well as what sort of context. It's because of this, none of us (unless you've actually been there!) knows whats going on.

 

You accuse us of dishonesty?

Let's look at the "distorted media reports" that would make you "quickly assume that the Israeli state has done little wrong". What are those reports?

Would it shock you to learn that everything you know about Israel's wrongdoings has been things that the media have told you? Would it shock you to learn that the media never told you why Israel did these things or in what context they happened?

Let's look at a few reports and judge them by some objective standards.

I propose the "refugee problem" as the objective standard.

When did you read the last report on Israel that mentioned Jewish refugees as well as Arab refugees?

Be honest. When did you see such a report?

If the message the media deliver were distorted as you claim, wouldn't we see a pro-Israel view of the refugee situation?

There have been more (but let's claim "as many") Jewish refugees fleeing Arab countries for Israel than ("as") Arab refugees fleeing Israel. One would assume that distorted news reports in favour of Israel would mention Jewish refugees and ignore Arab refugees. Have you seen that to be the case?

You don't know for sure. You "know" only what the "distorted" reports tell you. But oddly enough they told you about THAT.

Perhaps you are just assuming that the reports are distorted and that hence Israel must have committed worse crimes than the media report? You probably don't even consider it anti-Semitic to think like that.

But oddly enough, the reports you read are wrong. "Palestinian" villages are not bulldozed down to make room for Jewish "settlements". It's a lie and you fell for it.

And, incidentally, the question of "who shoots first" is not immaterial. It is quite material for those who are shot first.

But let's look at the settlements. Take the settlement in Hevron for example. Here's a few things you probably didn't know about the settlement in Hevron (because the pro-Israeli distorted news reports somehow never told you):

1. There has been a Jewish "settlement" in Hevron for thousands of years until Jordan expelled the Jews in 1948.

2. The Jewish "settlers" there today enjoy a good working relationship with the local Arab clans who have been reprimanded by the PLO government for that fact.

3. Western "pacifist" activists tried to tear down the synagogue in Hevron but were stopped by the Arab land owner who refused to allow the destruction of a house of prayer on his land.

4. Both the Jewish "settlers" and the leaders of the two local clans condemned the "pacifists" for their attempt to interfere in Hevron.

5. The Arab clan leaders have asked the Jewish "settlers" to petition the Israeli government to remove road blocks in and around Hevron since those roadblocks are not necessary in an Arab town that does not support terrorists (and is on the PLO's black list).

The sheikhs in question are Sheikh Abu Hader Jaabri and Haj Abu Akram Abu Sneineh. As far as I know Mr Jaabri is the son (or nephew) of a former Jordanian minister who himself tried to make peace with the Jews when Hevron was taken by Israel in 1967. Unfortunately his attempts were blocked by the PLO taking power and Israeli paranoia (due to earlier Arab, but certainly not all Arabs', attempts to eradicate the Jews).

You can see the meeting where the Jewish "settlers" thanked the Arab clan leaders for their initiative here:

http://players.mediazone.co.il/media/authors/34/playlists/180677/180677_static.asx

Unfortunately it is not a distorted media report or Arab propaganda but a simple recording of event in Hevron, but maybe you can trust it anyway.

 

 

I have been there.

I was a student in the University of Haifa when it was shelled by Hizbullah. At the same time I saw the media reports in the west that never even mentioned that

a) Hizbullah had been shelling Israel for the last five years (according to the pro-Israeli distorted media reports the war started when Israel first shot back after five years of taking it)

b) Hizbullah was actually shooting at schools and universities (the pro-Israeli distorted media reported merely mentioned whenever Israel hit civilian targets)

c) Israel evacuated the entire north of the country to avoid casualties (the pro-Israeli distorted media reported the raw numbers of victims without informing people WHY there were fewer Israeli victims)

Interesting? Would you have expected such distorted reports?

But that's not all.

Israel had fliers warning the Lebanese of attacks, asking them to leave the area. And the Lebanese didn't. I have seen the fliers, with Arabic and English text on them. Did the pro-Israeli media reports tell you about the fliers? I certainly never heard of them outside Israel.

And I have seen the rockets. The pro-Israeli distorted media never mentioned it, but the rockets were filled with explosives and metal parts, designed to kill as many people as possible while having no chance against buildings. Those were not rockets designed to win a war as they could not stop Israeli tanks or planes. Those were rockets designed to kill as many civilians as possible. Did the pro-Israeli disorted media reports mention that? I have seen a Lebanese rocket. I was there.

When you talk of media distortion and how we are all liars and how it is important to have been there, did you even consider for a moment that perhaps we were telling the truth, have been there, and that perhaps the reports might be distorted the other way? Did it even occur to you to think that perhaps the media could be not on the Jewish but the other side?

Or was it _obvious_ to you that those who defend Israel must be dishonest and that obviously all the media are on their side?

I think it was somehow obvious to you. And that is sad.

Either way, you were wrong and I was there.

And "none of us knows whats [sic] going on" is not true.

I have been there.

Have you?

 

And while we are at it.

The pro-Israeli distorted media also report massacres whenever the PLO claim there was one (like in Jenin where the UN never found any evidence for a massacre and was allowed to investigate) plus usually blame Israel for the death of an Arab whenever the PLO or Hamas say so, without waiting for an investigation or anything like that.

The Jews are as bad at controlling the media as they are at genocide.

If you want to know what's going on in the middle east, just go there and try it out.

Dress up as an obvious Arab and Muslim supporter of "Palestine" and walk through Israel. And then dress up as an obvious Jew and supporter of Israel and walk through any Arab country.

Observe the reaction and you will know why there is no peace in the middle east.

I'll give you two valuable tips:

1. For reasons of completeness, do the experiment in that order: travel to Israel FIRST, THEN to an Arab country. You will figure out why that is important once you get your second result.

2. The pro-Israeli distorted media will NEVER send a reporter to do that experiment and report the results. You will have to do it yourself.

 

Ever met a peace activist who didn't have time to condemn Israel because he was due at a demonstration against an Arab attack on Israel?

 

 

Yes. I don't think many people will admit (whether conciously or not), that their view of the middle east is constructed almost entirely of news reports and news papers. This isn't always the case, but for most of us it is, myself included.

How do i know that Settlements are built on top of former villages? It's simple Maths really. People moving to Israel needed a place to live. Prior to 1948 Palestines Jewish population was 6%. It is now upwards of 76%. The very land the west gave Israel was Palestinian in origion, and held Palestinian towns and villages.

It is an interesting point you make about the Jewish refugees, indeed it's never been brought up here, a point that refers me directly to the distorted media issue.

I think you worried incase i think there's a big world wide jewish conspiracy. I don't, you right in that distortion works both ways, but lets take my point a bit further and say walk down any English or American high street and ask the average person whose responsible for the conflict in Israel / Palestine. The answer i'd assume would be Palistine in most cases (i could be wrong). Most people, in my generation especially, are not even aware of the 1947-1948 war and how it was the UN's inconsideration that caused the war.

 

If your going to sit there and deny that Palestinian houses and villages have not been demolished then i'm sorry mate but this 'debate' is over, but before it is, let me just say i agree entirely with your point of Arab lack of tollerance for your people.

It's a disgrace really and i think if Islam is to become more accepted in the west it needs to distance itself with people who act so aggresivley towards those that don't follow it's teachings.

I've not visited that part of the world just yet, i'll be going hopefully some time in the near future with a friend of my fathers who voulenteers out there, to do exactly as i said, get a proper opinion of the place. Perhaps i'll come back and agree with you, perhaps i won't.

Todah Raba Leauki!

I have several friends that were there during this time that you spoke of. Their reports identical to what you mention.

A friend of mine that was visiting Lebanon when the Israeli rocket killed several civilians when it was aimed at a Hezbullah target. They were telling me that they were going around looking for children and women to be in their buildings. Some were even kidnapped, many others were bribed.

Shalom Aleichem.

No, my friend. You didn't say that Jews replaced "Palestinians" in 1948. You said:

"Palestinenian settlements are buldozed down and in their place  Israeli settlements are built."

Present tense, not past tense.

Anyway, Jewish population in "Palestine (Land of Israel)" (as the official name of the territory was then) was not 6% before 1948. It was more than 50% in the part that was to become the Jewish part.

If it had been 6%, there would have been a grand total of 30,000 Jews in the area during the war of independence. You are so wild on maths? Do the maths!

Incidentally, the land the Jews lived on back then was land the Jewish National Foundation legally bought. The Arab villages were not part of the plan. The Zionists did not actually believe that the Arabs would attack them and that there would be a war.

Do the math. Do you believe that 30,000 Jews believed that 500,000 local Arabs plus millions of Arabs from Judaea and Samaria, Gaza, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and Iraq could be beaten if only somebody started a war? That would be insane.

The truth is, and if you do the math you will see it, that there were several hundred thousand Jews, a majority in the western half of "Palestine" who did not want a war and were not prepared for it.

The question is not how you know that there are Jewish villages now where Arab villages used to be (and I am sure it is the same in Arab countries except the other way around), the question is why you claim that Israel _is_ bulldozing Arab villages now to settle Jews at their place. That's the allegation you made and it is still a lie.

It has been brought up here. I was referring to the media who you claim reported a distorted pro-Israeli image of the conflict. My point was that you won't find many reports in the western press who even mention the fact that Jews and Arabs, in roughly the same numbers, shared whatever pains come with being expelled or fleeing. However, there is no UN plan to help Jewish refugees and nobody mentions them in the western media.

If you insist that the press has a pro-Israeli bias, I will have to demand that you show me examples. I gave you two examples of anti-Israel bias (not mentioning Jewish refugees but claiming that Arab refugees are a problem and Israel's fault and not reporting the fact that Hizbullah shelled Israel for five years).

 

No. It was an Arab attack that caused the war. It was Arab nationalism that tried to unite Syria and "Syria Palestina" for decades and it was Arab nationalism that fought a war against ALL ethnic minorities, especially Jews, and especially a Jewish state.

Arab Palestinian leaders cooperated with the Nazis. Did you know that? Arafat's uncle and mentor recruited Muslims for the SS. He spoke on Radio Berlin about it during World War II. The Arab nationalists also planned a pro-German revolution in Iraq (then a Hashemite kingdom). And to this day Syria refuses to hand over the last remaining German war criminals.

The conflict has NOTHING to do with the UN. Nobody thought that the Arabs would actually go through with trying to exterminate the Jews. People thought those were empty threats, especially considering that the Holocaust just ended in Europe. The Zionists thought that the Arabs might attack though and were prepared... prepared to the extent that they could be without major allies.

If you ask an American who is responsible, few will answer "the Nazis" or "Arab nationalists". The reason for that is that most people, like you, have fallen for the lie that "Palestinians" are a distinct Arab people. They are not. They are inhabitants of Palestine, a region. And they were Arabs, Jews, Druze, and others. The idea that inhabitants of middle-eastern regions or countries would be ethnically pure is not an Islamic idea, it came from Europe.

If you ask me who is responsible, I will tell you that Arab nationalists are resposible. Just like they are reponsible for what happened to the Kurds in Iraq and for what happens to the Darfurians in Sudan now.

Good. Then the debate is over. You tell your lies about Israel and pretend you are never called on them. But repeat the bulldozer story, and I will point out the lie. You don't have to debate it.

And in my experience Arabs have a much greater tolerance for a Jewish presence in "Palestine" than western liberals and do-gooders who believe the stories made up by the PLO, Hamas, Syria, and Iran.

I have met Israeli Arabs and Arabs from the territories. The vast majority were really friendly. And very few had even heard of the stories I was told about Israel by American and European liberals.

The next time you see a picture of a Gazan blackout and people with candles, do yourself a favour: check the background of the picture. Last time they did it wrong and the street and shop lights were still on (and very bright) and plainy visible. It doesn't take much to fool westerners.

Islam has nothing to do with it. The PLO and the secular rulers who kept attacking Israel before the 1980s were not Islamic. They were secular nationalists trying to unite all Arab countries into one big entity with no room for smaller state. (Syria still doesn't recognise Lebanon as a country.)

You are mistaking Iran's mad mullah and their militias and the "Muslim" Brotherhood (including Hamas) for Islam. They are not.

Islam is a monotheistic religion based on the same myths and legends as Judaism. Muhammed himself believe in the same G-d as Moses and the Quran repeats and confirms the story of G-d telling Moses to lead the Jews into the promised land AND LIVE THERE. The Quran also speaks of two exiles and says that there won't be a third.

Muslims call Jerusalem "Al-Quds" ("The Holy") because it is the city of the temple of G-d. A Muslim ruler built a mosque on the Temple Mount a few hundred years after Muhammed for that reason. (Otherwise the city would have no meaning in Islam, but it does; and the Muslims did not just build beautiful mosques on all hills in conquered cities.)

I completely accept Islam and have no problems with it as a religion. But the secular nationalists, like the PLO, the Baath party, the Nasserists, and the Syrian Nationalsocialist party, are certainly to blame for the violence and the conflict.

Read this:

http://www.netneurotic.net/Extrablatt/

It's satire, but all the quotes are real. I just rewrote all the descriptions in a politically correct way. The news I report is real. The quotes are indeed from 1944 (except for Elizabeth Herman and "Franz" Buchanan). I just renamed Nazi officials as "human rights advocates" (without changing the report of what they actually did) and Arab Nazis became "religious leaders" (again without changing what they did).

Reads like todays news. But maybe you know what really happened back then?

 

Na'im meod.

 

I suppose they would be. It's the simple truth. And I don't know what good reason European and American media might have not to report it.

But as you can see, their reports are still understood as biased and pro-Israel.

There were demonstrations all over Europe against Israel FIGHTING BACK! NOBODY demonstrated against Hizbullah ATTACKING. Nobody... but Star of David flags they burned, just like in the 1930s.

 

I wanted to write a thoughtful and insightful response but I just can't seem to get it out of me.   I don't understand people who want to compare things with the holocaust.  I really don't think anything compares to that systematic dehumanization, brutalization and attempted elimination of an entire race of people.  When I see the pictures from the concentration camps, it literally almost makes me physically sick. 

I understand the desire to try to offer support to people who are being mistreated BUT you have to think about the venue, the effectiveness of your protest AND most importantly whether those people that you are targeting are the actual perpetrators of the mistreatment.  I guess if your whole point is to get on the news, then maybe they succeeded.  Effecting change - nope.  Winning people to your cause - No. 

I wish their were some easy answer so that everyone could live in peace and harmony in this world.  Sometimes it just breaks my heart that with each generation we still don't seem to have learned anything.  We still think the answer to our disputes is to kill other people. 

.

Well i think the key to your statement there is 'the Jewish part'. You could for example argue that in 1948, there was around 680,000 Jews living there in area's not including the west bank and gaza. If you use this assumption, were both wrong, it's more like 80% Jewish.

 

Regardless i'll man up here and admit that the figures i looked at initially were not from 1948 and for this i apologize, it was some time ago i was quoted them during a conversation at a dinner party. They were from 1922, just prior to Jewish migration from Europe, which happend during the mid 1930's. There was an agreement made between Nazi Germany and Zionist Palestinians to encourgage migration, as well as Jews being persecuted in Poland at the time as well, i think around the 1930's the number of Jews more than doubled.

 In light of what i've just admitted to i'd like to point out the irony here, The Israeli army at the start of the war was just under 40,000 (mostly Hanaga, but some armed settlers). This is of course just troops i'm talking about, not the actual population. It later rose by over 100,00. Not sure of the exact figures you can probably obtain them on Wiki. I think by the end of the War of Liberation you outnumbered the Arabs significantly.

Heh the first Arabic revolt of 1936 (or was 1937?) was inspired led by Islamic leaders.

Islam, is being used, manipulated and twisted in many parts of the world today to attack your country (as well as my country), yet and at the risk of repeating myself, it needs to do more to distance itself from some of the more exterme elements of its society. Think i'm overreacting? Why not look at the pictures of them wanting to hang a school teacher because she named a teddy bear mohammed. I can't help thinking however your just cutting of your nose off to spite your face at this point.

 

 

No i did not actually. I do know however that many Palestinians died fighting Rommel in Africa. I guess your quote has about as much relevance as the fact that Stalin backed Zionisim. Did you know that? As a means to hinder British imperialisim of course.

I'm having trouble taking most of what you've wrote seriously. As for the PLO (which by the way wasn't even formed by Palestinians, but by the Egyptians), well the USA is a secular country, but trying telling the Evangalist sitting in the white house saying we should teach Intelligent Design in schools that.

I hope you don't have any more issues with people protesting at family events, it's sickening and wrong, on the other hand please don't think every western liberal is baying for the blood of Israel, most just want the violence to stop.

 

 

 

Scotteh, you know those movies where someone says "Much of what you know is not true?"

Do you know the story of Adnan Hajj and the false photographs? It first began when the blog site "Little Green Footballs" analyzed photos of Beirut burning and the photos showed IDENTICAL plumes of smoke rising from different areas of Beirut. Identical despite the fact that the wind should have been blowing them in at least slightly different manners. Identical in every aspect. It turned out that the photographer had used the cloning tool in Photoshop to create the image.

First Reuters denied it, then feigned ignorance and then finally acknowledged that they had been deceived. They "recalled" the photos that had already been published around the world. (This wasn't some little news service, this was Reuters and Reuters provides news feed around the world.) Then it came out that the same photographer had provided fictious, doctored photos for years. An Israeli jet dropping a flare began an Israeli jet shooting missles at civilians. The same wailing old woman was shown in front of multiple destroyed houses. You can read part of the story here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy

But as the investigation continued the question arose of how the fraud could have been perpetrated without any journalist saying "Hey, I was there and that didn't happen." It turned out that for years journalists have been taken on "tours" conducted by terrorists, filmed staged "photo opportunities" and reported them as if true.

The famous photo of the Green Helmet Guy carrying a dead child, presumably a victim of the 2006 Qana airstrike is another example. He was shown on film orchestrating the photo session, directing journalists on where to stand and what to film. The fact that the same Green Helmet Guy was at the 1996 Qana scene raised doubts as to whether Salem Daher was in fact a Hezbollah operative. The larger question is why the journalists followed his orders. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Helmet

There is no doubt that the Israeli government bulldozes  houses. But there is also no doubt that the  famous photos of children  crying on the rubble are staged.

We could go on and on. You obviously have an interest in history. I will leave it up to you to make your own mind of how much you have been told is true and how much is false.

Thanks Larry for the articles, i'll take a look at them.

I know for sure that the media these days report wars and conflicts in a light that A) sells lots of stories and can often be used to motivate political agendas of news papers and their readers.

I'm hoping on visiting the area myself in the future, an area that is the casue of so much tension around the world, i feel it's important to obtain a proper perspective of it.

I doubt that i will fully ever come to understand the nature of the conflict, but hopefully i can at least see past what the media wants me to see.

No, there wasn't.

The Zionists tried to make such an arrangement before Hitler became genocidal, but the Nazis were not interested. (Turns out they didn't want Jews to emigrate.)

I am not sure where you get all your lies from, but I don't think it is just the media. They don't report total lies like that but usually just omit facts or change parts of the story.

I suggest you think about your statements before you make them. You are so found of maths? What about logic? Nazi Germany had a law against Jews emigrating. How do you reconcile that fact with an alleged pact with Zionists?

(Where did you even hear about that "pact"? Was it one of those weird Web sites that try to equate Zionism with Fascism? Did you think that those Web sites are a good source for historic facts?)

Nazi Germany did have a pact with Palestinians, but not with Zionist Palestinians but with anti-Zionist Arab Palestinians, specifically with their leader the self-proclaimed "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem". The plan was the creation of a Syrian empire and a pro-German Iraq.

Stalin didn't back Zionism any more than the western powers did. The Soviet Union voted for partition as did the US and Britain. Nevertheless Stalin did not allow Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union. (Which is why Russian Jews arrived in the millions AFTER 1990. Good heavens, GERMANY has been FLOODED with them in the last 18 years, as has Israel. Did you even know that?)

Incidentally, the percentage of Jews in 1922 was 11%, not 6%. And that was in ALL of cisjordan Palestine. (Jews were not allowed to settle in transjordan Palestine.)

I find it extremely tiring to take apart claim after claim of yours. Can you not check your beliefs for validity before you post them as facts?

Yes, I think so. A people that defends itself against extermination has no problem recruiting soldiers from its population. The Arabs didn't send all they had because they thought it would be easy. But do you think the Jews knew that?

You didn't even know there were more than 30,000 Jews in Palestine at the time. How did you think a total population of 30,000 won a war against an army that outnumbered them?

 

They had no other leaders in the region. In contrast to the Jews in Palestine, the Arabs had no secular civil authorities, only religious such.

Nevertheless, the revolt was inspired by nationalism, not religion. The goal was Syrian souvereignty over Palestine, not even an Islamic state.

 

I can imagine. It's difficult when you suddenly wake up and learn that you have believed lies for so long. Nevertheless I can back up everything I said.

You think the quote is meaningless? Well, then what is meaningful? Perhaps the fact that the Mufti and his people attacked Jews? The fact that he recruited Muslims for the SS? The fact that his projects were planned in Berlin? The fact that even the Jordanian government got rid of him once they controlled Jerusalem? What exactly can an Arab do to in an alliance with the Nazis to make you acknowledge the alliance as "meaningful"? He spoke for the Nazis, recruited for the Nazis, and fought for the Nazis. The German army did nothing more than that. Would you also consider their involvement with the Nazis as not meaningful? (In fact, the German army did less. Most war crimes were comitted not by the regular army but by the SS and Gestapo, INCLUDING the Mufti's Muslim unit.)

Incidentally, do you not find it odd that Palestinians (of all races) would sell land to the JNF and then claim that the Jews "stole" the land?

 

May I ask, what gave you the idea that media reports are subject to a pro-Israeli bias?

 

And finally:

If 680,000 people were 80% of the population, the 20% Arabs would have been 170,000 people. Even if you ignore the fact that tens of thousands of them were Druze and Bedouin tribes allied with the Zionists, that would make for a grand total of little more than 100,000 original refugees.

Can you PLEASE make it a habit to do the maths for any number you hear or read somewhere? It's embarassing.

 

Oh, and another point about the "refugee problem": Israel called on Jews in Arab countries to come to Palestine and Arab countries called on Arabs in Palestine to leave Palestine. It's true.

And in contrast to the Palestinian Arabs in Israel very few Jews actually could stay in their home countries. They were persecuted (at best) and killed (at worst) (with the exception of Morocco).

Do you have an explanation for the the UN and the media would only acknowledge Arab refugees but not Jewish refugees? How do you reconcile that fact that the pro-Israli bias you believed you saw?

Would you support a notion that the UN give as much money to Israel for the Jewish refugees as it gave to the PLO and other organisations for the Arab refugees?

 

I was in a synagoge in Krefeld in Germany a few weeks ago.

Everybody there spoke Russian, most German as well, some a little Hebrew. I was the only English-speaker.

And in Israel it is difficult to find a non-Russian taxi driver these days and hundreds of shops advertise in Russian in every city.

I think it is safe to say that Russian Jews migrated to Germany and Israel just a short time ago and not in the 1940s when Stalin "supported Zionism".

 

Put on a kippa, walk into certain parts of East-German cities, or any Arab city outside Israel, and you will fully understand the nature of the conflict.

 

Now that's the right attitude.

Unfortunately, the media don't actually WANT you to see what they make you see. It's more like journalists also share the common attitude that the Jews MUST have done something bad, and they are trying to keep the idea alive that they must have until they find out what it is.

 

Yes there was, prior to the law prohibbiting Jewish Emigration. It was not a 'pact', more so a mutal understanding. Jews leaving Germany were given the same value of their land back home in Israel by the Zionists.

I suggest you look at the work of historians such as Charles D Smith and Avi Shlaim, both of whom (try to at least) provide a non-biased factual approach to the historical documentation of the conflict. Both mention the German and Zionist agreement. Let me tell you as a Brit it's not an easy read, but i find it refreshing and neither try to force a certain side of the arguement down my throat. 

As i said previously i was not aware of it. Forgive me if i don't hold it at face value given some other stuff you've stated in here. I'm not denying it, i'll look into it myself and come to my own conclusion before commenting fully on it. I can imagine it being quite possible, given the nature of Imperialisim at the time, but at the same time i can't hold it to be true until i've read considerable documentation stating it from reliable sources.

I mean lets say i was argueing with an anti-zionist arab on this very forum and he started to argue that the holocaust never happend and so on. I would never for a minute consider that to be true, yet you want me to take your highly biased opinion to be true straight up.

Re-read what i wrote.

Seriously mate, you need to get a grip and read the other persons arguement before insulting them with accusations.

*Applause* Your actually right here, contraory to how many Anti-Zionists would like people to think, the land was bought. It was mostly bought off the Arab goverment however and there was a lot of anger from Arab citizens towards their leaders for selling the land initially.

Ok so these 'secularists' weren't using Islam to inspire their population to make a stand? I think you will often find that in times of such desperation, when you offer a reprieve such as religion people tend to bite your arm off for it. There are countless examples in history.

Right - but i never said otherwise, so whats your point?

 

I've already omitted that the distortion works for and against both sides, so can we stop beating the dead horse that is the me believing in some media conspiracy against Palestianians in favour of Israel.

As for the UN giving money to refugees, i think it depends on their current state, if they are indeed empoverished because of the war, living in out of tents and genuinley at danger from lack of food, medical supplies or lack of security then of course the UN should give them money, regardless of what side of any conflict their in.

 

And suddenly it is no longer a "pact" but but an "understanding".It may be true that the Zionists compensated Jews who fled from Nazi Germany. And indeed Israel adopted a similar policy towards Jews who fled from Arab countries. But that hardly makes it a "pact" or even an "understanding".

Perhaps you have a source for the "agreement", one that doesn't require me to buy a book that might or might not speak of such a pact?



And now you are accusing me of lying. That's rich!

You have stated many things here as fact and then later admitted that you didn't really know that. And your excuse for that is that "given some other stuff" I have said, you don't believe me?

What "other stuff" have I said that you regard as lies?



Simple maths. You weren't talking about the West Bank and Gaza. I know that. What I don't know is why you bring them up now. You claimed that 680,000 Jews were 80% of the population of the Jewish part of Palestine. I did the maths and found that this would have meant that a mere 170,000 Arabs lived in that land, which would mean that there couldn't have been more than 170,000 refugees.

If I re-read what you wrote, what could change?



Well, you did speak of Stalin's support for Zionism, but in reality he didn't support Zionism at all. I do think you "said otherwise", when you say one thing and it turns out not to be true at all.



Really... Then riddle me this, my friend.

Why did the UN not give any aid to the Jewish refugees when they lived out of tents and were at genuine danger from lack of food (and rockets)?

And why does the UN give so much more money to Arab refugees than to all the other refugees world-wide?

It does clearly NOT depend on their current state.

I think the UN should give money to those who need AND deserve it, not to those who need it because they use their own means to build rockets.

The occupied territories have a higher standard of living (according to the UN) than Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. So perhaps the UN should give that aid to Egypt and Jordan instead.


I am sick and tired of pointing out lie after lie and mistake after mistake here. And all the while you keep accusing me of lying without even pointing to the statements you believe are wrong (and claim are lies).

I would suggest you stop rephrasing your statements after I pointed out that they were wrong and own up to your mistakes.

I tell you what. I showed you two instances of an anti-Israel bias in the media. If you want to keep up the idea that the media are, if not pro-Israel, at least biased against both (depending on time of the year or whatever), YOU show me an example of a pro-Isral bias; something as huge as the refugee and rocket issues, something that has been with us for decades.

Good luck.

 

"If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." (Hassan Nasrallah (head of Hizbullah) Daily Star, Oct. 23, 2002)

Did anybody ever try to kill you because of the people/race/religion you belong to?

I believe that you don't understand people who want to compare things with the holocaust.

I wish that everyone will eventually be in that position.