Peace in the Middle East

[RyrineaHaruno]

disinformation of who on what?

The Russians is what I have read ^^.

The Russians Were Coming: The Soviet Military Threat in the 1967 Six-Day War

 

[mbig]

I imagine you would since it is a place where anyone, no matter how biased, can suggest the article is biased or wrong even if they have no answer to the evidence provided.

I was pointing out that some issues on Wiki are very political, Not factual.
I have watched entries for all M-E and islam issues change before my very eyes over the years - an in favor of the Arab/ist position.
Wiki, tho your only reference here, is not the last word.
Unlike you, I have provided plenty of references.

I do not sympathize with the notion of anyone being entitled to land simply because they have ancestral ties there. However, when someone has actually been living there that whole time...

"Whole time" is only a generation.
If you were born in Hawaii, you're a Hawaiian.

No, remember we were talking specifically about the war in 1948. You claimed it was a war launched to wipe out the Jews. I said it wasn't, then the other guy claims Arabs have always been trying to wipe out the Jews, putting forward a rather inaccurate overgeneralization that definitely does not apply in the context of the 1948 war.

Wrong. We were talking about the whole Period in question.
Specificity to 1948 was ONLY brought in when You HAD to find a time when palestinians were displaced!
Bizarre and frightening take you have on reality. Especially when it's recorded in this very string.

I was saying were are talking about something far in the past, not modern times. Hamas has no relevance to the specific aims of the Arab nations in the 1948 war. Even talking modern times this generalization is weakened by the fact you neglect to mention Fatah, which has openly endorsed the existence of a Jewish state for decades now.

Your answer to al-Buraq was that Islamism/Jihad no longer had relevance, Now.
You were wrong... Again.

Oh sorry, I was thinking it was all what Mark Twain said. Then I stand corrected. Putting aside hyperbole over the years, it proves nothing. Palestine was not actually empty, it's hyperbole not meant to be taken literally.

What you did, and always do, is Dishonest debate.
Leaving off ther vast Bulk of a post (in this case with Two Articles and Chocks of sources and info) and just dis it all as 'Twain Hyperbole'
This IS your tactic here as you are not up to matching facts.

Honestly, in one source you are saying Palestine was inhabited by a plethora of people from all over the world, none or few of them native, and then you're citing another claiming there were no people there at all.

I am saying it was Sparse and populated by various peoples.
I certainly CAN have it those/Both ways.
Another logic gap.

Twice as much what? Twice as much Arabs moving to the area as Jews? Was the rate of growth twice as much? ..

That the Arab population grew MORE (the word you keep dropping) than Twice as fast in the areas the Zionists settled.
IOW... Followed them in for the economic opportunity they presented.
Just as they flock to Israel to THIS very day for Jobs; especially before the 2000 Intifada, but still.

Some of what I mentioned occurred in that same month before Egypt did any of what you said, and other things took place just the month before that. Dismissing it as irrelevant is just ridiculous.

What was Ridiculous was YOU Claiming everything you posted was previous to everything I posted, thinking that made it more important!... when the Reverse was true.
So that you not only had a fact problem, but a Logic one. :^(
-

 

[al Buraq]

I do not sympathize with the notion of anyone being entitled to land simply because they have ancestral ties there. However, when someone has actually been living there that whole time it is another matter entirely. In this case the vast majority of Jews had not been living there for a thousand years at least, while the Arabs who lived there had.

Then, you must be outraged over the Ottoman Muslim Turks undermining Arab bedouins by instituting land reform to raise property taxes that transferred their land to wealthy Arab landholders not even living in Palestine. They were screwedby their own Muslim brethren.

Nice, eh?

Jews purchased the land they came to live on completely legally...from Arabs!!! At exhorbitant prices.

Arabs, in the end, fcked themselves in rejecting statehood and attempting to commit genocide against the Jews.

Boo f-ing hoo.

 

[Gardener]

I imagine you would since it is a place where anyone, no matter how biased, can suggest the article is biased or wrong even if they have no answer to the evidence provided.



.

and, of course, discussion groups such as this are places where antisemitic bigots are free to indulge in speculation as to the bias of those who do not share their hatred.

 

[Demon of Light]

I was pointing out that some issues on Wiki are very political, Not factual.
I have watched entries for all M-E and islam issues change before my very eyes over the years - an in favor of the Arab/ist position.
Wiki, tho your only reference here, is not the last word.
Unlike you, I have provided plenty of references.

Ok, now I think you're just trying to piss me off, because I have given plenty of sources, not just one. Also, maybe you need to understand the difference between not being pro-Zionist and being pro-Arab.

"Whole time" is only a generation.

I was clearly referring to their parents, grandparents, etc. I am sure you know that.

Wrong. We were talking about the whole Period in question.

Wow, ok, keep track of the discussion my friend. I said Arabs were kicked out in 1948 you said it was spoils of a war the Arabs launched to wipe out the Jews. I pointed out that who launched the war is not so clear-cut and that the Arab nations had no interest in wiping out the Jews. So we were talking about 1948 here.

Specificity to 1948 was ONLY brought in when You HAD to find a time when palestinians were displaced!

Actually I was always thinking of the actions in 1948 as far as kicking people off the land. Before that stealing the land was about the process of deliberate colonization that sought to create a Jewish state out of what was Arab land.

Your answer to al-Buraq was that Islamism/Jihad no longer had relevance, Now.

No my answer, was the Muhammad and the Quran had no relevance to what the Arab nations were intending in 1948.

Leaving off ther vast Bulk of a post (in this case with Two Articles and Chocks of sources and info) and just dis it all as 'Twain Hyperbole'
This IS your tactic here as you are not up to matching facts.

It is hyperbole.

I am saying it was Sparse and populated by various peoples.
I certainly CAN have it those/Both ways.

It was "sparse" in that there were not nearly as many people before the colonization as after, but it was still a largely Arab population with long-standing ancestral ties to Palestine specifically.

That the Arab population grew MORE (the word you keep dropping) than Twice as fast in the areas the Zionists settled.

I don't care if it was 2.3 times as fast, and you are still not being clear about this. It sounds like you are saying the areas where Zionists the Arab population grew twice as fast as in the area they didn't. That is to be expected as economic growth does that, those are the benefits of getting lots of Rothschild money.

However, you should really think about this a bit. Many of the cities and towns had a large Arab population and small Jewish one, but then Jews from Europe began flooding the area and in a matter of decades those same cities were overwhelmingly Jewish or sat right next an overwhelming Jewish settlement. There was no real secret what they were looking to do so yes they were stealing their land. Ultimately if there had been no Jewish colonization process Palestine would have been an Arab country.

I am not talking literal theft here, not until 1948, but the kind of theft committed by U.S. colonists and pioneers against the Native Americans.

What was Ridiculous was YOU Claiming everything you posted was previous to everything I posted, thinking that made it more important!... when the Reverse was true.

When you're claiming x country is the aggressor then it certainly is more important if y country was already being aggressive.

Then, you must be outraged over the Ottoman Muslim Turks undermining Arab bedouins by instituting land reform to raise property taxes that transferred their land to wealthy Arab landholders not even living in Palestine. They were screwedby their own Muslim brethren.

Is the Ottoman Empire still around constantly claiming the moral high ground in every act of war regardless of the actual circumstances?

Arabs, in the end, fcked themselves in rejecting statehood and attempting to commit genocide against the Jews.

Only they didn't do either.

and, of course, discussion groups such as this are places where antisemitic bigots are free to indulge in speculation as to the bias of those who do not share their hatred.

If you are implying something, then you really need to review the topic. I have only cited sources which cannot be reasonably accused of bias, let alone anti-Semitism, but I have only seen pro-Zionist sources on the other side. Someone who is unbiased, would find something more reliable.

 

[mbig]

Ok, now I think you're just trying to piss me off, because I have given plenty of sources, not just one. Also, maybe you need to understand the difference between not being pro-Zionist and being pro-Arab.

Better check that assertion on Wikipedia.

Wow, ok, keep track of the discussion my friend. I said Arabs were kicked out in 1948 you said it was spoils of a war the Arabs launched to wipe out the Jews. I pointed out that who launched the war is not so clear-cut and that the Arab nations had no interest in wiping out the Jews. So we were talking about 1948 here.

Duh.. That’s what I said.
We were talking the whole broad conflict, mainly in fact, Pre-1948 UNTIL you had to use that War the Arabs started to show any Arab Displacement at all. LOL
Because generally there was NOT.

Leaving off ther vast Bulk of a post (in this case with Two Articles and Chocks of sources and info) and just dis it all as 'Twain Hyperbole'
This IS your tactic here as you are not up to matching facts.

It is hyperbole.

This is precisely the Kind of Dishonest “short-quoting” you do in post After post.
Please do get “pissed off”. I’m calling your posting tactics Despicable and Dishonest.. because they are.
There, AGAIN, was FAR more than just Twain in the TWO Articles.
AGAIN, like the British Consul (1857) Saying Palestine was “empty” and “it’s Greatest Need was a body of population”.. as well as citing a dozen or more famous European travelers to the area from the 16th-19th Centuries.
And in the second, presenting a detailed picture of the Hodge-Podge that made up Palestine.
(citing Britannica 1911 and many other sources)

In fact I think I’m going to just REPOST/Repeat only what you don’t respond to in every post until you do. Which is most of my posts and your truncations/Flubs.
You just hope you can Bluff your way thru every debate.

I don't care if it was 2.3 times as fast, and you are still not being clear about this. It sounds like you are saying the areas where Zionists the Arab population grew twice as fast as in the area they didn't. That is to be expected as economic growth does that, those are the benefits of getting lots of Rothschild money.

No
I made it clear what Meant.
You Again Dishonestly Drop what I said/Short-quote me.
I said it grew More than two Times as fast because the Arabs (immigrants) followed in the Jews/Zionists for the economic Opportunity they presented; just as they do Today. (and especially before the Intifada (next War) they Started.
I know you can’t respond to that.
And I’ll probably have to post it a third, fourth, or fifth, time like everything else, to not let you Avoid the issues.

What was Ridiculous was YOU Claiming everything you posted was previous to everything I posted, thinking that made it more important!... when the Reverse was true.

When you're claiming x country is the aggressor then it certainly is more important if y country was already being aggressive.

When you’re deciding who's the aggressor it’s important to look at events in coherent sequence… the way I presented them.

 

[al Buraq]

Actually I was always thinking of the actions in 1948 as far as kicking people off the land. Before that stealing the land was about the process of deliberate colonization that sought to create a Jewish state out of what was Arab land.

You must be referring to Arabs who fled in the '47 and '48 wars that THEY INITIATED.

Population dislocations are common in war. The Arabs should have given this possible outcome some thought.

You might want to actually learn what colonization is before using polysyllabic words.

Colonization is an outside power establishing a foothold in another land, exploiting its resources and its labor.

Jews in Palestine were sent by which motherland? Tsarist Russia?

What resources did Jews exploit? Jews, in fact, renewed the resources by re-building irrigation systems destroyed by multiple wars, including World War I, and turned barren desert into orange groves.

And, Arab labor was not exploited. Jewish labor transformed Palestine from a craphole into an oasis.

No my answer, was the Muhammad and the Quran had no relevance to what the Arab nations were intending in 1948.

Wrong. Islamic ideology of intolerance of Jews is the basis for Arab belligerence toward Jews.

Open the Quran.

It was "sparse" in that there were not nearly as many people before the colonization as after, but it was still a largely Arab population with long-standing ancestral ties to Palestine specifically.

You just made this up.
After Jewish immigration, the Arab population increased exponentially as Arabs migrated to take advantage of the booming economy fostered by the Zionist enterprise. In many areas, Arab populations grew by as much as 400%

am not talking literal theft here, not until 1948, but the kind of theft committed by U.S. colonists and pioneers against the Native Americans.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about, frankly.

When you're claiming x country is the aggressor then it certainly is more important if y country was already being aggressive.

Huh?

Is the Ottoman Empire still around constantly claiming the moral high ground in every act of war regardless of the actual circumstances?

Huh, again?

If you are implying something, then you really need to review the topic. I have only cited sources which cannot be reasonably accused of bias, let alone anti-Semitism, but I have only seen pro-Zionist sources on the other side. Someone who is unbiased, would find something more reliable.

Unintelligible gibberish.

 

[donsutherland1]

Moderator's Warning:

Baiting should be avoided. For example, one should refrain from characterizing legal Jewish immigration as "colonization." In general, efforts to mischaracterize events in a fashion that can only inflame tensions rather than add to the general debate and discussion should be avoided. Thank you.

 

[Degreez]

don,

I just want to point out that there is a difference between colonization and colonialism.

 

[donsutherland1]

don,

I just want to point out that there is a difference between colonization and colonialism.

Moderator's Warning:

In the future, PM me about such issues. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, colonization is the noun associated with the infinitive "to colonize." To colonize is "to send people to live in and govern another country." Technically, neither the Ottoman Empire nor the UK "sent" Jewish immigrants to the Palestine region. They legalized immigration. Jewish people were free to immigrate to the region under the policy. They were not sent to do so nor compelled to do so.

 

[al Buraq]

don,

I just want to point out that there is a difference between colonization and colonialism.

A distinction without an appreciable difference.

 

[Gardener]

A distinction without an appreciable difference.

Especially concerning that the terms do not apply, and are merely the stuff of parroting the themes one finds at hate sites.

 

[al Buraq]

Especially concerning that the terms do not apply, and are merely the stuff of parroting the themes one finds at hate sites.

Any use of the term "colony" in reference to Jews living in Palestine is intended to demonize Jews who are, in fact, living lawfully on land that is historically and legally Jewish land.

In fact, it is Muslims who colonized Palestine, Egypt, Persia and Iraq centuries after Jews were already living there, as well as colonizing much of the world, including the Middle East and North Africa...
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests]Muslim conquests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Gardener]

Any use of the term "colony" in reference to Jews living in Palestine is intended to demonize Jews who are, in fact, living lawfully on land that is historically and legally Jewish land.

In fact, it is Muslims who colonized Palestine, Egypt, Persia and Iraq centuries after Jews were already living there, as well as colonizing much of the world, including the Middle East and North Africa...
Muslim conquests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm reminded of the turnspeak inherent in the term "ethnic clensing". The truth of the matter is that it is Jews who have been clensed from Arab lands, but the hate sites that brainwash the ignorant portray it as the other way around.

 

[al Buraq]

I'm reminded of the turnspeak inherent in the term "ethnic clensing". The truth of the matter is that it is Jews who have been clensed from Arab lands, but the hate sites that brainwash the ignorant portray it as the other way around.

Even Islamic apologist Karen Armstrong concedes Muslims beheading almost 1,000 Banu Quraiza Jews in Medina was the first Jewish Holocaust. Muhammad and his pirates, in effect, colonized Medina after the hijra from Makkah. He even colonized its name from Yathrib to Medina, which means the "city of the prophet"

 

[Demon of Light]

We were talking the whole broad conflict, mainly in fact, Pre-1948 UNTIL you had to use that War the Arabs started to show any Arab Displacement at all. LOL
Because generally there was NOT.

I had found one instance, but I can't locate the source now. However, the idea of it being stolen was that there was a deliberate policy of colonization, the Zionists actually called it colonization, which did indeed seek to take control of that territory. Hence it was being stolen from the Arabs.

There, AGAIN, was FAR more than just Twain in the TWO Articles.

Yeah, and it's all hyperbole.

I made it clear what Meant.

No, you really haven't. However, I think you are beginning to make it clearer. Are you saying where the Jews were the Arab population grew twice as fact than where there weren't any Jews?

When you’re deciding who's the aggressor it’s important to look at events in coherent sequence… the way I presented them.

The fact remains all the actions you mentioned followed acts of aggression and plans for further aggression by Israel. Egypt was reacting to what they saw the imminent threat of a war launched by Israel.

Also, good hypocritical behavior there, ignoring most of my post while claiming I am when I have addressed every point.

You must be referring to Arabs who fled in the '47 and '48 wars that THEY INITIATED.

As I said, it is not so simple. There were some small groups of people who rioted at first and there were killings, and then there were reprisals by Zionists, which sparked riots that cause massacres and led to more Zionist terrorism. To say "the Arab started it" is just oversimplifying the situation.

Population dislocations are common in war. The Arabs should have given this possible outcome some thought.

This is not just some incidental side-effect of war. Arabs were being deliberately expelled from regions the Zionists wanted to populate with Jews. It was a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing.

You might want to actually learn what colonization is before using polysyllabic words.

The Zionists used it to describe their own actions, so why shouldn't I?

Colonization is an outside power establishing a foothold in another land, exploiting its resources and its labor.

It is often defined as such because countries are usually the only ones with the means and resources to initiate such a campaign. The Zionist colonization of Palestine is an anomaly.

What resources did Jews exploit? Jews, in fact, renewed the resources by re-building irrigation systems destroyed by multiple wars, including World War I, and turned barren desert into orange groves.

With the help of wealthy British nobility, aka the Rothschilds.

And, Arab labor was not exploited. Jewish labor transformed Palestine from a craphole into an oasis.

At first they used did use Arab labor, however this policy was changed to avoid dependence on the natives for the maintenance of the colonization effort.

Wrong. Islamic ideology of intolerance of Jews is the basis for Arab belligerence toward Jews.

Even if you bigoted remarked were true, they're not, not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims are devout.

You just made this up.

I've been saying this from the beginning and it is solid fact.

In many areas, Arab populations grew by as much as 400%

Maybe they moved from one part of Palestine to another, but the Arab Population in Palestine didn't even double during this time.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about, frankly.

I am saying that I did not just refer to land that was literally stolen, but stolen in the sense of it being the result of a process of colonization.

Huh?

I am saying it is important that Israel was being aggressive before Egypt did anything that was mentioned as starting the war.

Huh, again?

I am saying I don't care what the Ottoman Empire did because it isn't around anymore.

Unintelligible gibberish.

Really? I think most people who understand English would understand exactly what I said. If you can't understand that then it seems you have a problem.

Especially concerning that the terms do not apply, and are merely the stuff of parroting the themes one finds at hate sites.

They most certainly do apply and I am taking it straight from the Zionists, not from any hate site.

I'm reminded of the turnspeak inherent in the term "ethnic clensing". The truth of the matter is that it is Jews who have been clensed from Arab lands, but the hate sites that brainwash the ignorant portray it as the other way around.

Arab nations actually tried to keep Jews from leaving because they didn't want to increase the population of Israel. Some nations had other reasons for wanting them to stay. In some cases it got so serious that Jews actually killed fellow Jews to scare them into moving to Israel.

Egypt has to be faced with Lavon Affair and Suez War before it deported Jews. Then there was considerable pressure for Jews to go to Israel from the Jewish leaders. To call it ethnic cleansing is an insult to victims of actual ethnic cleansing.

 

[mbig]

I had found one instance, but I can't locate the source now. ....

oooops.
So admitting all you found was "one instance" is of course Unwittingly admitting you're wrong.
There would be tons of instances if this was a truism.

Yeah, and it's all hyperbole.

Repeating the Lie post after Post.

This is precisely the Kind of Dishonest “short-quoting” you do in post After .......

There, AGAIN, was FAR more than just Twain in the TWO Articles.
AGAIN, like the British Consul (1857) Saying Palestine was “empty” and “it’s Greatest Need was a body of population”.. as well as citing a dozen or more famous European travelers to the area from the 16th-19th Centuries.
And in the second, presenting a detailed picture of the Hodge-Podge that made up Palestine.
(citing Britannica 1911 and many other sources)

In fact I think I’m going to just REPOST/Repeat only what you don’t respond to in every post until you do. Which is most of my posts and your truncations/Flubs.
You just hope you can Bluff your way thru every debate.

No, you really haven't. However, I think you are beginning to make it clearer.

I can't be held responsible for your lack of language skills or intentional misinterpretations.

Are you saying where the Jews were the Arab population grew twice as fact than where there weren't any Jews?

Yes, and to Repeat (unbelievable), they Followed them FOR the economic opportunity they presented, and as I said AGAIN, still do to this very day.

The fact remains all the actions you mentioned followed acts of aggression and plans for further aggression by Israel. Egypt was reacting to what they saw the imminent threat of a war launched by Israel.

Nasser's actions say Otherwise.
Kicking out UN Peacekeepers and closing waterways are Gauranteed to lead make war happen.

As I said, it is not so simple. There were some small groups of people who rioted at first and there were killings, and then there were reprisals by Zionists, which sparked riots that cause massacres and led to more Zionist terrorism. To say "the Arab started it" is just oversimplifying the situation.

I see; Arabs "riot" but Zionists "terrorize".
Got it.

This is not just some incidental side-effect of war. Arabs were being deliberately expelled from regions the Zionists wanted to populate with Jews. It was a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing.

No it wasn't and you haven't shown it was.
There was no overall plan of Ethnic cleansing, tho as I said, during the War the Arabs started, there were no doubt abuses and some villages were chased.
But by and large the refugees were the result of Arab requests to leave and the "Flail of War" (morris).

I'll let others answer for themselves as you have unwisely Jumbled your responses to everyone into One post.

 

[al Buraq]

The fact remains all the actions you mentioned followed acts of aggression and plans for further aggression by Israel. Egypt was reacting to what they saw the imminent threat of a war launched by Israel.

You just made this up. You have no grasp on the facts.

As I said, it is not so simple. There were some small groups of people ho rioted at first and there were killings, and then there were reprisals by Zionists, which sparked riots that cause massacres and led to more Zionist terrorism. To say "the Arab started it" is just oversimplifying the situation.

You made this up, too. Muslim massacres of Jews began in the 7th century when Muhammad beheaded nearly 1000 Banu Quraiza Jews.

Arabs began slaughtering Jews in 1920.

This is not just some incidental side-effect of war. Arabs were being deliberately expelled from regions the Zionists wanted to populate with Jews. It was a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing.

You concocted this, too.

UN Res. 181 conferred Arab statehood, thus, there was no reason for Jews to expel Arabs.

In fact, Arabs attacked the Jews one day after issuance of UN Res. 181 in an attempt to destroy the Jewish community.

Now, even you know.

The Zionist colonization of Palestine is an anomaly.

You still do not know what colonization is. There was no Zionist colonization.

Muslims colonized Palestine after the Battle of Yarmuk, where Jews lived for centuries.

Muslims colonized the Middle East and North Africa, which had been Christian and Jewish.

With the help of wealthy British nobility, aka the Rothschilds.

The same "British nobility" who prevented Jewish immigration during Nazi Germany, leading to the deaths of millions of Jews.

At first they used did use Arab labor, however this policy was changed to avoid dependence on the natives for the maintenance of the colonization effort.

You just made this up.

I've been saying this from the beginning and it is solid fact.

You are unfamiliar with the facts.

I am saying I don't care what the Ottoman Empire did because it isn't around anymore.

You don't care about the Ottoman Empire because you don't care to understand the history of the Middle East that has a direct impact on the present.

Arab nations actually tried to keep Jews from leaving because they didn't want to increase the population of Israel. Some nations had other reasons for wanting them to stay. In some cases it got so serious that Jews actually killed fellow Jews to scare them into moving to Israel.

And, you made this up, too.

Too bad you cannot monetize your fictional account of reality. You could make a nice chunk of change. Ka-Chingggg.

 

[Demon of Light]

oooops.
So admitting all you found was "one instance" is of course Unwittingly admitting you're wrong.
There would be tons of instances if this was a truism.

Finding an unbiased source that would cover such details is not exactly easy online. However, it is beside the point as my argument was always concerning everything up to and including actions in 1948 and I already explained the role the colonization process played.

Repeating the Lie post after Post.

You've already said it wasn't actually empty so you are clearly conceding it was hyperbole. I don't see why we should discuss that any further. I already provided evidence of many having lived there for thousands of years before the Arab conquests. You are clearly wrong to suggest otherwise.

Yes, and to Repeat (unbelievable), they Followed them FOR the economic opportunity they presented, and as I said AGAIN, still do to this very day.

Why should any of that matter? They may have grown more than elsewhere, but they were being overwhelmed by Jewish immigrants who had no intention of sharing the country they planned to establish.

Nasser's actions say Otherwise.
Kicking out UN Peacekeepers and closing waterways are Gauranteed to lead make war happen.

Are you not paying attention? He thought Israel was already planning to go to war and it had already carried out acts of aggression.

I see; Arabs "riot" but Zionists "terrorize".

That is how it was for a long time. The Zionist forces had considerable organization and sophistication, partly because the British helped them. It wasn't until late in 1947 that the first organized acts by the Arabs began.

There was no overall plan of Ethnic cleansing, tho as I said, during the War the Arabs started, there were no doubt abuses and some villages were chased.

I can point to at least a dozen individual villages where there were massacres, depopulation, and razing. I can find any number of villages that were depopulated. While there were naturally some who simply fled a substantial portion, perhaps half, were made to leave by the Zionists through a variety of methods and their homes destroyed to deter them from returning.

But by and large the refugees were the result of Arab requests to leave and the "Flail of War" (morris).

Are you referring to Benny Morris? I cannot know exactly what you are citing but a great deal of what he has presented indicates there was deliberate ethnic cleansing. In the beginning it was people fleeing voluntarily, but depopulation quickly became an active policy of the Zionist forces. Arab orders were essentially a non-factor. Consider the depopulation of Lydda and Ramla. Oh, wait, I'm sure you found some pro-Zionist that continues to assert the myth of Arab orders to retreat. Never mind a great deal of evidence exists to indicate it was a deliberate action by the Zionists.

 

[al Buraq]

You've already said it wasn't actually empty so you are clearly conceding it was hyperbole. I don't see why we should discuss that any further. I already provided evidence of many having lived there for thousands of years before the Arab conquests. You are clearly wrong to suggest otherwise.

You've provided no evidence.

Why should any of that matter? They may have grown more than elsewhere, but they were being overwhelmed by Jewish immigrants who had no intention of sharing the country they planned to establish.

The Ottoman Turks permitted Jewish immigration.
The British Mandate permitted Jewish immigration.

UN Res. 181, which Jews accepted and Arabs rejected, called for sharing the territory as two independent states.

Are you not paying attention? He thought Israel was already planning to go to war and it had already carried out acts of aggression.

You made this up.

That is how it was for a long time. The Zionist forces had considerable organization and sophistication, partly because the British helped them. It wasn't until late in 1947 that the first organized acts by the Arabs began.

The British army attempted to undermine the establishment of the Jewish homeland under the terms of the Palestine Mandate.

The British army, furthermore, trained Arab armies in preparation for the '48 War and fought on the side of the Arab armies.

I can point to at least a dozen individual villages where there were massacres, depopulation, and razing. I can find any number of villages that were depopulated. While there were naturally some who simply fled a substantial portion, perhaps half, were made to leave by the Zionists through a variety of methods and their homes destroyed to deter them from returning.

You made this up.

Are you referring to Benny Morris? I cannot know exactly what you are citing but a great deal of what he has presented indicates there was deliberate ethnic cleansing.

Morris states unequivocally there was no "deliberate ethnic cleansing"

And, you're done.

 

[Demon of Light]

You just made this up. You have no grasp on the facts.

I did not make this up. By all means look at April 7, 1967. Read up on I think May 12 or 13 when they authorized strikes on Syria. Moshe Dayan said most of the skirmishes with Syria were deliberately provoked in the hopes of slowly expanding territory.

You made this up, too. Muslim massacres of Jews began in the 7th century when Muhammad beheaded nearly 1000 Banu Quraiza Jews.

Arabs began slaughtering Jews in 1920.

I do not care what Muhammad did, because he was already dead. As for 1920, I would hardly call it slaughtering. Just under ten people died, half of them Arab.

UN Res. 181 conferred Arab statehood, thus, there was no reason for Jews to expel Arabs.

Except they wanted that land too.

In fact, Arabs attacked the Jews one day after issuance of UN Res. 181 in an attempt to destroy the Jewish community.

There were riots and some attacks, but to suggest it was an attempt to destroy the Jewish community is blowing things out proportion.

You still do not know what colonization is. There was no Zionist colonization.

There most certainly was colonization. The Zionists said themselves it was colonization.

Muslims colonized Palestine after the Battle of Yarmuk, where Jews lived for centuries.

Muslims colonized the Middle East and North Africa, which had been Christian and Jewish.

You confuse colonize with proselytize.

The same "British nobility" who prevented Jewish immigration during Nazi Germany, leading to the deaths of millions of Jews.

I was specifically referring to the Rothschilds who were so wealthy they gained the status of British nobility in the early 1800's if I recall correctly.

You just made this up.

Seriously, look into the Hebrew labor movement or Labor Zionism.

You don't care about the Ottoman Empire because you don't care to understand the history of the Middle East that has a direct impact on the present.

I don't care about the Ottoman Empire because it no longer exists. Why get flustered about something that is long gone?

And, you made this up, too.

You can accuse me of lying all you like, but I have not said a single thing without researching it and finding evidence to back it up.

The British army attempted to undermine the establishment of the Jewish homeland under the terms of the Palestine Mandate.

The British army, furthermore, trained Arab armies in preparation for the '48 War and fought on the side of the Arab armies.

You are really misrepresenting the British role. It is not as simple as being on one side or the other. British leaders in many instances enabled the colonization efforts and helped build up the military forces of the Jewish settlements.

Morris states unequivocally there was no "deliberate ethnic cleansing"

I'm not concerned with his opinion of the matter, but the evidence he provides.

 

[mbig]

oooops.
So admitting all you found was "one instance" is of course Unwittingly admitting you're wrong.
There would be tons of instances if this was a truism.

Finding an unbiased source that would cover such details is not exactly easy online. However, it is beside the point as my argument was always concerning everything up to and including actions in 1948 and I already explained the role the colonization process played.

But you said you knew the topic well.
You don’t know Anything. You don’t even refer to anything or anyone.
You just Wiki.. bluffing your way thru as you would on astrophysics!

You've already said it wasn't actually empty so you are clearly conceding it was hyperbole. I don't see why we should discuss that any further. I already provided evidence of many having lived there for thousands of years before the Arab conquests. You are clearly wrong to suggest otherwise.

But you Disingenuously use the Absolute ‘empty’ in order to avoid the issue and the many sources prevented.
Sources without hyperbole that say it was Sparse and non-homogenous.

Sources you DISHONESTLY drop in every post.

Yes, and to Repeat (unbelievable), they Followed them FOR the economic opportunity they presented, and as I said AGAIN, still do to this very day.

Why should any of that matter?......

It matters because you say they were being kicked out.
Your Basic and Repeated Lie.
lie, or being completely Uninformed, and BOTH, being what you do in every post on this topic.

Kicking out UN Peacekeepers and closing waterways are Gauranteed to lead make war happen.

Are you not paying attention? He thought Israel was already planning to go to war and it had already carried out acts of aggression.

He Closed Israe’ls southern maritime link, a provocation for war in Anyone’s book…and LBJ said it was the Most important factor in causing War.
And kicking out UN peacekeeepers is NOT a defensive move.
This is beyond silly.. it is emptily argumentative and .. yes again Dishonest.

I can point to at least a dozen individual villages where there were massacres, depopulation, and razing.

But Demon claimed here
http://www.debatepolitics.com/inter...uslims-silent-kurdistan-2.html#post1058754857
Displacing 2 MILLION Kurds of 10 million and burning their villages wasn’t cleansing!!! (Not to mention Killing 40,000)
Now you want to complain, for Palestine/anti-Jew sake a DOZEN villages is!
Outed!

Are you referring to Benny Morris? I cannot know exactly what you are citing

You could if we already had this discussion and Lost.

Arab orders were essentially a non-factor. Consider the depopulation of Lydda and Ramla. Oh, wait, I'm sure you found some pro-Zionist that continues to assert the myth of Arab orders to retreat. Never mind a great deal of evidence exists to indicate it was a deliberate action by the Zionists

Your welcome for the Hints on a Topic on which you still know Basically NOTHING.. again obviously having googled Morris and finding two places he said were cleansed, but withholding the linkas the rest vindicates Isreal in the main.

I have a string on this Rookie, citing Mostly those Arab leaders and Dailies on the topic as well as as Major Western Ones.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/63871-3-creation-1948-refugees.html

Some excerpts

"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, Imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and Threw them into Prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemmed to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The ARAB States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did Not Recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable.

- by Abu Mazen, from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, March 1976


I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the Direct Consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem,

Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the Official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, Beirut, Daily Telegraph, Sept 6, 1948


The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.

-Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949

-
"Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of refugees... while it is we who made them to leave...
We brought disaster upon... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave...
We have rendered them dispossessed...
We have accustomed them to begging...
We have participated in lowering their moral and social level...
Then We exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon... men, women and children - all this in service of Political purposes..."

- Khaled al Azm, Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war


"As early as the first months of 1948 the Arab League issued orders exhorting the people to seek a temporary refuge in neighboring countries, later to return to their abodes in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish property."

- bulletin of The Research Group for European Migration Problems, 1957


One morning in April 1948, Dr. Jamal woke us to say that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), led by the Husseinis, had warned Arab residents of Talbieh to leave immediately. The understanding was that the residents would be able to return as Conquerors as soon as the Arab forces had thrown the Jews out. Dr. Jamal made the point repeatedly that he was leaving because of the AHC's threats, NOT because of the Jews, and that he and his frail wife had no alternative but to go.

Commentary Magazine -- January 2000


"The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."

- Jordan daily Ad Difaa, Sept 6, 1954


"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as Renegades."

- The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948

 

[Demon of Light]

But you Disingenuously use the Absolute ‘empty’ in order to avoid the issue and the many sources prevented.
Sources without hyperbole that say it was Sparse and non-homogenous.

No one actually said it wasn't, only that there were lots of different peoples there. As far as being sparse, I have in fact already addressed it.

It matters because you say they were being kicked out.

They were kicked out, however.

He Closed Israe’ls southern maritime link, a provocation for war in Anyone’s book…and LBJ said it was the Most important factor in causing War.

I'm no fan of LBJ so I don't know why you think his opinion should convince me of anything. As I said, it was a reaction to actions and plans Israel had.

And kicking out UN peacekeeepers is NOT a defensive move.

Peacekeepers on Egypt's territory exclusively, preventing Egyptian forces from protecting some of their most crucial land. Yeah, it was defensive.

Now you want to complain, for Palestine/anti-Jew sake a DOZEN villages is!
Outed!

Seriously, shut up already with your asinine personal attacks. It is already being discussed there so I'm not bringing it here. I am only noting that there are prominent examples of massacres, evidence of ethnic cleansing is more widespread, authoritative, and legitimate. Looking at how many have been displaced by war and declaring it ethnic cleansing would allow you to say pretty much every war was ethnic cleansing.

Your welcome for the Hints on a Topic on which you still know Basically NOTHING.. again obviously having googled Morris and finding two places he said were cleansed, but withholding the linkas the rest vindicates Isreal in the main.

I have been looking into this subject for years.

I have a string on this Rookie, citing Mostly those Arab leaders and Dailies on the topic as well as as Major Western Ones.

As I said I am not new to the discussion, only this forum. There is no evidence of orders and in fact Zionist intelligence at the time found most of the people left because of their operation, and very few because of anythings the Arab leaders said.

 

[al Buraq]

I did not make this up. By all means look at April 7, 1967. Read up on I think May 12 or 13 when they authorized strikes on Syria. Moshe Dayan said most of the skirmishes with Syria were deliberately provoked in the hopes of slowly expanding territory.

Unfortunately, you are not acquainted with history.

I do not care what Muhammad did, because he was already dead. As for 1920, I would hardly call it slaughtering. Just under ten people died, half of them Arab.

220 Jews were wounded. You "forgot" to mention this.

Except they wanted that land too.

The land was not Arab land. It was Turkish land.
Sovereignty over Palestine was transferred from the Ottoman Turks to the World War I Allies to the Jews via the Treaty of Sevres and San Remo Resolution.

There were riots and some attacks, but to suggest it was an attempt to destroy the Jewish community is blowing things out proportion.

Historian Benny Morris suggests Arabs attempted to destroy the Jewish community...

In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.

There most certainly was colonization. The Zionists said themselves it was colonization.

As I have demonstrated, you do not know what colonization is, nor was there Jewish colonization.

I don't care about the Ottoman Empire because it no longer exists. Why get flustered about something that is long gone?

Translation: You're not informed on the Ottoman Empire and its relevance to the present.

Don't get so flustered.

You are really misrepresenting the British role. It is not as simple as being on one side or the other. British leaders in many instances enabled the colonization efforts and helped build up the military forces of the Jewish settlements.

You're uninformed.
The British were merely trustees of the Palestine Mandate, issued by the League of Nations, which establishes Palestine as the Jewish homeland.

I'm not concerned with his opinion of the matter, but the evidence he provides.

You should be concerned with being better informed.

 

[mbig]

No one actually said it wasn't, only that there were lots of different peoples there. As far as being sparse, I have in fact already addressed it.

Your welcome. It was me who Banged that into your head during this string.
Contradicting your earlier Claim In it!
However you remain Dishonest and Disingenuous in regards the Sparseness of Palestine and the FACT no one had to be displaced.
And in fact BOTH population grew Strongly.

They were kicked out, however.

And when was that?
Have you yet managed to find any instance beside the inevitable displacement of the 1948 War?
NO. Yet you claim/LIE being fluent and knowledgeable.

I'm no fan of LBJ so I don't know why you think his opinion should convince me of anything. As I said, it was a reaction to actions and plans Israel had.

LBJ was just one outside and Informed opinion.
You have NONE to counter it.
I presented a large fact base backing it.

Peacekeepers on Egypt's territory exclusively, preventing Egyptian forces from protecting some of their most crucial land. Yeah, it was defensive.

If I was worried about being invaded I would want Peacekeepers on my terriory!
You have Screwed yourself AGAIN with the Simplest, but most obtuse claim yet.

Seriously, shut up already with your asinine personal attacks. It is already being discussed there so I'm not bringing it here. I am only noting that there are prominent examples of massacres, evidence of ethnic cleansing is more widespread, authoritative, and legitimate. Looking at how many have been displaced by war and declaring it ethnic cleansing would allow you to say pretty much every war was ethnic cleansing.

Ooooh a long one.
I guess this Sequence really OUTED you and Your singular hate of 'zionists'.

I can point to at least a dozen individual villages where there were massacres, depopulation, and razing.

But Demon claimed here
http://www.debatepolitics.com/inter...uslims-silent-kurdistan-2.html#post1058754857
That Displacing 2 MILLION Kurds and burning their villages wasn’t cleansing!!! (Not to mention Killing 40,000)
Now you want to complain, for Palestine/anti-Jew sake a DOZEN villages is!
Outed!

So now we have this incredible juxtaposition showing Duplicity and Double standard.
Making a Huge issue out of a "Dozen Palestinian Villages" while Condoning the Destruction of Thousands of Kurdish ones and Two MILLION People by the Turks!

It doesn't get any more clear where you stand and why.

I have been looking into this subject for years.

You shoulda looked closer.
You're getting Killed.

As I said I am not new to the discussion, only this forum. There is no evidence of orders and in fact Zionist intelligence at the time found most of the people left because of their operation, and very few because of anythings the Arab leaders said.

This is a ANOTHER DEMON LIE. (So oft they are, I may have to start using the words interchangeably)

And As ALWAYS, I have presented evidence of Arab leaders urging people to leave while you have posted just the usual Empty slanders and Have to Ignore My quoted including that by the Present leader Abbas.

You are NOT even in this string knowledge-wise, but thanks for being my set-up man for posting devastating evidence.

Oh yeah.
I'm gonna start repeating just part of what you can't even faux address in your posts.
The meat.

"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE AND TO LEAVE THEIR HOMELAND, Imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and Threw them into Prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemmed to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The ARAB States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did Not Recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable.

- by Abu Mazen, from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, March 1976


I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the Direct Consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem,

Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the Official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, Beirut, Daily Telegraph, Sept 6, 1948


The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.

-Falastin (Jordanian newspaper), February 19, 1949


"Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of refugees... while it is we who made them to leave...
We brought disaster upon... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave...
We have rendered them dispossessed...
We have accustomed them to begging...
We have participated in lowering their moral and social level...
Then We exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon... men, women and children - all this in service of Political purposes..."

- Khaled al Azm, Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war


"As early as the first months of 1948 the Arab League issued orders exhorting the people to seek a temporary refuge in neighboring countries, later to return to their abodes in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish property."

- bulletin of The Research Group for European Migration Problems, 1957


One morning in April 1948, Dr. Jamal woke us to say that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), led by the Husseinis, had warned Arab residents of Talbieh to leave immediately. The understanding was that the residents would be able to return as Conquerors as soon as the Arab forces had thrown the Jews out. Dr. Jamal made the point repeatedly that he was leaving because of the AHC's threats, NOT because of the Jews, and that he and his frail wife had no alternative but to go.

Commentary Magazine -- January 2000


"The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."

- Jordan daily Ad Difaa, Sept 6, 1954


"Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the -Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as Renegades."

- The London weekly Economist, October 2, 1948

Demon CANNOT address any of this.
It refutes him 100%
Yet he didn't even know it existed.
He just posts the leftist line with NO backing whatsoever.
-