History of the palestinian-israeli conflict

[Frisbeetarian]

So it became clear to Yosef Weitz on 20 December of 1940 that Jews and Arabs do not want to live together. Are you implying that he was/is wrong?

Every historical analysis differs with what you said. Jews and arabs lived side by side for the 1800 years of your exile. Its the Zionists that never tolerated Arab presence. More citations and references coming. Tsk tsk your begining to dissapoint.

[Frisbeetarian]

1938, Ben-Gurion states:

"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves - that is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. ... But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves."

In a nut shell, its a conscecion that they are invading foreign lands.

Zionist:
Foreign lands? Jews have always existed in the region, these lands are historically and divinely ours.

Yes, spoken like a true colonist. Colonizing projects have typically the same rhetoric of a 'divinely-ordained mission', 'chosen people', etc., and the same authority of the Old Testament to justify themselves. In the case of the United States, Thomas Jefferson suggested that the new national seal should show the children of Israel led by a pillar of light from the heavens, since he was 'confident that Americans were the new chosen people of God'. In later years, the same pretense was captured in the doctrine of 'Manifest Destiny', which - in the words of the journalist who coined the phrase - signalled that the North American continent was 'alloted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions'. Arnold Toynbee once observed that it was the same 'biblically recorded conviction of the Israelites that God has instigated them to exterminate the Canaanites' that sanctioned the British conquest of North America, Ireland and Australia, the Dutch conquest of South Africa, the Prussian conquest of Poland, and the Zionist conquest of Palestine.

The full gamut of the Zionist movement made much of what was dubbed the 'historical right' of the Jews to Palestine. It was a 'right that required no proof ... a fundamental component of all Zionist programs'. Steeped in German Romanticism, the claim was that because the forefathers of the Jewish people had originated and been buried in Palestine, Jews could only - and only Jews could - establish an authentic, organic connection with the soil there. Even so sober a thinker as Ahad Ha'am could aver that Palestine was 'a land to which our historical right is beyond doubt and has no need for farfetched proofs'. The veteran Zionist leader, Menahem Ussishkin, pushed the logic of the argument to its ultimate, if fantastic, conclusion, stating that 'the Arabs recognize unconditionally the historical title of Jews to the land'.

This sort of 'historical right' was also seized by the Romantic precursors of Nazism and, with a vengeance, by the Nazis themselves, to justify the conquest of the East. Germany was said to have legitimate claims on Slavic territory (especially but not limited to Poland) since it was 'already inhabited by the Germans in primeval times', 'fertilized by the most noble ancient German blood', 'germanic for many centuries and long before a Slav set foot there', ,teutonic-German Volksboden for 3000 years as far as the Vistula. ... In the 6th and 7th century after Christ the Slavs pushed outwards from their eastern homelands and into the ancient German land ... - admittedly only for a few hundred years', etc. The Slavic 'interlopers', by contrast, were seen as 'history's squatters' who merely 'existed' in surroundings that they 'could not master'. Only the remnant or newly settled German communities were supposedly able to 'shape' the environment and by so doing make it 'their own' in the course, ephemeral as it was, of Slavic rule. Poland under the Slavs, for example, was depicted as an artificial entity, more a melange of inchoate nationalities than a cohesive nation, that had fallen into a state of abject decay - 'untilled fields surrendered to the thorny clutches of wild nature, desolate farm buildings, soil erosion' - with the notable exception of the German enclaves that managed to endure and even thrive despite all. Substitue the proper nouns and one could be reading any standard Zionist history of Palestine. Indeed, so profound is the affinity of these two literatures that it is registered even in specific phraseology. Thus in 1939, the eminent pro-Nazi historian, Albert Brackmann, portrayed Germany as Europe's 'defender' and 'bulwark' against the East', and the 'bearers of civilization' against 'barbarism'. A half century earlier, Theodor Herzl portrayed the prospective Jewish State as Europe's 'wall of defense against Asia', and 'an outpost of civilization against barbarism'. (i.e: a mercenary state. My emphasis)

In any event, Zionism's 'historical right' to Palestine was neither historical nor a right. It was not historical inasmuch as it voided the two millenia of non-Jewish settlement in Palestine and the two millenia of Jewish settlement outside it. It was not a right, except in the Romantic 'mysticism' of 'blood and soil' and the Romantic 'cult' of 'death, heroes, and graves'.

Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Norman G. Finkelstein (p. 100-101)

[TripolySunni]

Palestinian Case Taking a Turn for the Worst:

الكيان الصهيوني: سفارة سعودية مقابل تجميد الاستيطان

almourabitoun.com

Obviously both governments want this (As they have planned for this fer a while), we're just party poopers.

PINI you can use google translator :) anyway I though of a new nickname for you how about this "More Israeli-Than the Israeli".

[Frisbeetarian]

Palestinian Case Taking a Turn for the Worst:


الكيان الصهيوني: سفارة سعودية مقابل تجميد الاستيطان

almourabitoun.com

Obviously both governments want this (As they have planned for this fer a while), we're just party poopers.

A military blow will force them to capitulate the west bank, just like the october war, just wait and see.

[proIsrael-nonIsraeli]

Originally Posted by Frisbeetarian

Every historical analysis differs with what you said. Jews and arabs lived side by side for the 1800 years of your exile. Its the Zionists that never tolerated Arab presence. More citations and references coming. Tsk tsk your begining to dissapoint.

Like yourself I used to believe it was all peachy. Unfortunately not anymore.

First, Jews were subservient to Arabs/Muslims in all those years.

Second, Jew were constant target of Arab anti-Semitism (yes, anti-Semitism is proper term) even before Theo Hertzl could walk and talk (look up 1834 riots in Safed/Tzfat as an example).

Third, Zionism demanded equality for Jews first of all and this is when it begun apparent that two will not want to live together. Hell, just take a look at Lebanon's sectarian straggle to understand the problem better.

So, I am sorry to disappoint you, but it is what it is.

[TripolySunni]

Originally Posted by proIsrael-nonIsraeli

Like yourself I used to believe it was all peachy. Unfortunately not anymore.

First, Jews were subservient to Arabs/Muslims in all those years.

Second, Jew were constant target of Arab anti-Semitism (yes, anti-Semitism is proper term) even before Theo Hertzl could walk and talk (look up 1834 riots in Safed/Tzfat as an example).

Third, Zionism demanded equality for Jews first of all and this is when it begun apparent that two will not want to live together. Hell, just take a look at Lebanon's sectarian straggle to understand the problem better.

So, I am sorry to disappoint you, but it is what it is.

Yes Anti-Semetism, And How About the Holocaust? and the Many Hitlers you had to face over the years from Jesus to Ahmadi nijad.

[proIsrael-nonIsraeli]

Originally Posted by TripolySunni

Yes Anti-Semetism, And How About the Holocaust? and the Many Hitlers you had to face over the years from Jesus to Ahmadi nijad.

If you have a point make it.

[TripolySunni]

Originally Posted by proIsrael-nonIsraeli

If you have a point make it.

Point: I Don't care if Hitler killed 6 Billion Jews instead of 6 million, I Don't Care if You were Oppressed 500 years ago or 2000 years ago. East Jerusalem is Occupied Arab territory, the Wall you build is Illegal, The Settlements Should be Removed from all areas taken in 1967, Palestinians Should have a State of thier own were the refugees may want to return, GAZA and WestBank should at least be joined together...

That's the point and don't bring up jewish suffering because no one cares, I Won't allow you to use it as an excuse to make palestinians suffer in the present.

[Republican]

Originally Posted by proIsrael-nonIsraeli

Like yourself I used to believe it was all peachy. Unfortunately not anymore.

First, Jews were subservient to Arabs/Muslims in all those years.

Second, Jew were constant target of Arab anti-Semitism (yes, anti-Semitism is proper term) even before Theo Hertzl could walk and talk (look up 1834 riots in Safed/Tzfat as an example).

Third, Zionism demanded equality for Jews first of all and this is when it begun apparent that two will not want to live together. Hell, just take a look at Lebanon's sectarian straggle to understand the problem better.

So, I am sorry to disappoint you, but it is what it is.

Is it Arabs or Muslims that were targeting the Jews? There is a difference.

And for your information, it was the other way around, Jews were persecuted by "Christians" in Europe.

" In 589 C.E., Visigoth King Recared relinquished the Aryan sect and accepted the orthodox Catholic faith, thereby paving the way for the religious unity in the country. Subsequently the Church was to exert powerful influence on all aspects of social life. Almost immediately a canon was passed forbidding the marriage between Christian and Jews; and in 612 C.E., the Council of Gundemar of Toledo ordered that all Jews submit to baptism within the year, or undergo "scourging, mutilation, banishment, and confiscation of goods" (Meyrick 170). "


When Muslims conquered Al-Andalus, the first thing they did, was freeing the persecuted Jews from oppression of the Visigothic, and Muslims killed the tyrant king Roderick.

"It was said that immediately after the invasion, the Jewish population of Toledo "opened the gates" of the city, welcoming the North African Muslims (Wexler 218)."

Oh and by the way, we can never be Anti-Semites, because that means we are anti-ourselves, this accusation is worthless, baseless, and more
over it reflects your ignorance.

Our continuous battle is with a zionist entity, a terrorist, murderous entity, that have no respect to human life, and doesn't differentiate between man and woman, young and old; this unnatural, queer zionist entity should and will be eradicated.
Justice shall prevail against all odds, inhumane school of thoughts i.e the zionist entity, have no future in our Levant, it has no future anywhere on this green planet.

Hopefully you'll see the light, and your material mind may be able to digest the truth someday, but that is highly unlikely, you already live in a one-eyed society, and you practice a one-eyed policy, so technically you're hopeless...

P.S: Sources are
The Doctrine of the Church of England on the Holy Communion. Meyrick, Fredrick. 1908
The non-Jewish origins of the Sephardic Jews - Paul Wexler. State University of New York Press (March 1996)

[Frisbeetarian]

Second, Jew were constant target of Arab anti-Semitism (yes, anti-Semitism is proper term) even before Theo Hertzl could walk and talk (look up 1834 riots in Safed/Tzfat as an example).

Third, Zionism demanded equality for Jews first of all and this is when it begun apparent that two will not want to live together. Hell, just take a look at Lebanon's sectarian straggle to understand the problem better.

So, I am sorry to disappoint you, but it is what it is.

Constant target of Arab anti-Semitism? You mean Arabs also hated themselves? Your argument is baseless and illogical. As we are also Semites. You argument that Arab riots against Jews were spurred out of anti-Semitism has no logical or argumentative basis. You only seem to focus on what happened, never on why it happened or the circumstances for it hapening; the reason why i am dissapointed with you. Because you fail to critically analyse everything and it seems that im just wasting my time by procuring and validating my point through heavy reference and citations while you only seem to be talking out of your *** and with a very narrow uncultured and uneducated perspective.

Zionism by its definition always required a nation for the Jews. This sole piece of information clears the point that the sole intent of Zionism was to take part of what was sovereign land and colonize it, under the pretext given in my above post (reasons which do not stand close scrutiny). Now, you want to go in take away land from indegineous population and proclaim you want equality and peace. By all measure of stupidity Sir, that is pure ******** and an insult to anyone's intelligence.