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.

 

You used the word Pact, not me.

You've said flat out that Israel has not bulldozed Palestinian towns. This is either a lie or a sign of your sheer ignorance of the entire situation:

An Example from the BBC

 An Example from the New York times

 The IDF has even said it is a military strategy, say it discourages those who wish to harbour terrorists, with the threat of their house being destroyed.

I will say my sources are from the very distorted media we are disputing here, hence why i provided two seperate examples, one from a non-privatley owned corporation and one from the New York times. If you want to use google, you can find examples from the from the Fox News on a similar incident.

There is of course the possiblity all three are lieing, but even if the new york times and the bbc did have an anti-israeli agenda, which they may well have (their certainly not telling the whole truth), i seriously doubt that Fox News (yes you heard me Mr Murdoch i'm questioning the integrity for your news corporation) has a pro-Palestinian agenda.

It is important for my arguement at this point to say that these provide no evidence of settlements being built on top of the house being knocked down, but tell me what happens to the land that is conquered during Military advances into the West bank and Gaza?

 

1) We'll if you insist, but please after i provide you with examples don't start acting as though i'm throwing around propoganda or tryin to highlight pro-israeli media (which as i've said countless times in this 'discussion' isn't the case, and that it works both ways).

Let's take a look at America shall we? Let's look at the number of Israeli and Palestinian reported child deaths reported by the San FranSisco Chronicle during 2001. If you look at the headlines of many news papers, approximatley 5% of Palestinian child deaths are reported, as opposed to 100% of Israeli child death casualties.

Sources for actual casualties are from: This Study.

I will state that i'm not a perponent of 'If America Knew', but all the same you asked for an example and they've provided one. You'll no doubt refute the claim, probably because it comes from western liberals, however it does provide an example of media distortion.

I could then show an example of possibly an arabic news paper, not reporting Israeli child deaths. Media distortion, working on both sides. Yet you keep asking for only Pro-Israeli media distortion. Is this because of some self delusion that none exists in the west?

If you are to say 'No, it's only because i don't want people to think the distortion works only one way' then fine, your absaloutley right and an important thing to state, but to say that there isn't any pro-Israeli media in the west is naive, at best.

Well firstly your wrong. In UN Resolution 194, said that all refugees not returning to their countries (including Jews not returning to arab countries) should be compensated. 

What you could argue at this point, is how come there wasn't as much attention payed to the Jewish refugees. This is probably because of how succesful Israel was at absorbing the 600,000 refugees into it's popluation. Something i think the state of Israel should be proud of, no?

You have said that Israel bulldozed Arab towns to replace them with Jewish settlers. That was not true.

You are again changing what you said when your bluff was called.

I did at no point claim that Israel does not bulldoze houses of terrorists for military purposes. In fact, I believe Larry has specifically mentioned that in his comment?

So we came from your original claim that Israel is bulldozing Arab homes to replace them with Jewish settlements via the claim that Israel did so in 1948 to your new claim that Israel uses the bulldozers against the homes of terrorists.

Do you even notice that those three claims are quite different?

The FBI probably raid the houses of suspected drug dealers. Those drug dealers might be black. But that's not the same as claiming that the FBI raid houses of black people to replace them with white people. And claiming that the FBI does that now is not the same as pointing out that it might have happened 60 years ago.

Actually, that study seems to be about ONE American newspaper, not about the "headlines of many news papers".

I think you might find that it is the other way around. I have certainly seen more pictures of Arab victims than of Israeli victims. And the media rarely mention that the Arab victims were actually located next to terrorists when they were hit.

I wasn't talking about individual news papers and their inaccuracies. I was talking about the major lies that have been told for decades.

 

How does that make me wrong? I wasn't talking about compensation and neither were you.

I was talking about UN help for refugees, as were you.

Of course Israel was more successful at absorbing the _900,000_ refugees. One reason for that was that it had to. The UN were not giving them any aid.

 

No, I wouldn't go that far.

I would just go as far as claiming that your statement

"All i know for sure is the following, Palestinenian settlements are buldozed down and in their place Israeli settlements are built."

is either a lie or was a mistake that you won't admit.

Unless you believe that Israel was planning to build a Jewish settlement where the Jenin police building was standing...

 

You can choose to ignore me all you want, but please don't call me a liar. I said very well after that statement the following:

I asked you a direct question, one you refused to answer becuase you know full well what has happend on some of that land. What is the point of a debate if your only going to listen to what you want to hear? How will you ever increase your knowledge in life if you won't listen to what people have to say. Unless your motive is not to do so and only go around bickering and trying to prove a point.

 

You asked for an example and i provided one. You didn't explicitly state what sort of an example, and whether or not it should apply to all media outlets. By all means however hide behind that ridiculous retort you just given, if it makes u walk away from this feeling better.

This is laughable to be frank, compensation is aid when your being forced from your home. I'm sure it provided a lot of the refugees with some sort of comfort to know that they were getting some relief after going through the ordeal. I think this is a wonderful example of nitpicking on your part, just like with your media retort, always a nice sign of someone not having an forsight in the debate.

Look at my inital comment at the top of this post, regarding the West bank and Gaza territories captured from incursions for your answer to this.

I'm seriously done here, your unable to apply reason to a debate, you've begun to use nitpicking and vaugeness for your arguement. I'd rather waste my time rubbing my balls along a blunt razor blade while humming Land of Hope and Glory at this point than debate with you any further.

Good day.

 

 

"All I know for sure is the following, Palestinenian settlements are buldozed down and in their place Israeli settlements are built."

An anti-Semitic lie that has caused a war to continue for decades and thousands of deaths. But so many people believe it and "know" for sure. And it turns out their basis for their "knowledge" is a report of a bulldozer destroying an enemy police building.

Incidentally, aid is not compensation and was never meant as such.

Scotteh,

You have told so many lies here, it's outrageous. And your self-righteous defence that it constitutes "nitpicking" if your lies are called doesn't help.

Plus you have accused me of lying, without ever even point out what statement you thought were incorrect. You say that I am unable to apply reason to a debate? You came here stating as facts several anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, all of which I countered.

Your bad maths (which results in a mere 170,000 Arabs living in what is now Israel in 1948) compliments your political views.

I will give you here, again, the truth:

Arab villages are NOT being bulldozed down to replace them with Jewish settlements.

Your statement that you "know for sure" that they are was a lie, is a lie, and is simply not funny.

People get beaten up on the streets because there are ignorant people out there who believe such nonsense and scum who claim that they know that it's true. It's not funny.

If you don't know something, don't claim that you do and don't repeat as fact what you simply don't know. If you read a BBC report that Israel bulldozed a police station, DON'T make it into a tale of ethnic cleansing; because those urband legends cost lives. They don't cost your life, but other people's. It's not funny.

And I don't care if you call me a liar for exposing you for what you are. I don't think you even see why it is relevant whether Israel really is currently bulldozing homes to replace Arabs with Jews or not.

The next I feel the need to hide who I am because I fear that I could get attacked (hopefully with words) because some young idiots have heard one of the stories about crimes committed by Israel which never happened I _WILL_ remember the type of rightous honest person I have to thank for those stories being told.

But I think I can promise you, and that is totally independent of whether you or I are right here, that you will never get beaten up or attacked because somebody believed the things _I_ said here in this discussion.