Israeli Settlements

Implying that I have done so. I thought I'd made it clear that I hadn't.

Yes they can. They haven't because they correctly don't see it helping them any. There is a difference.

The only thing I would question is the 100% number. Pretty hard to get 100% support for anything if you have more than a hand full of people. Even the declaration of war vs Japan in 1941 wasn't unanimous.

IMO one of the most serious problems is even if the Isrealis gave back the whole West Bank there would till be huge numbers of Palestinian refugees and they would still be justifyably unhappy with the situation. To get a lasting settlement they must be taken care of and even together the Palestinians and the Israelis simply don't have the means.

 

Why do you think robbing of lands, cutting the accessible roads and destroying the means of living of the Palestinians is not heaping more misery? Of course it does!

Why do you prefer repeating that old Zionist-extremist propaganda when we know for a FACT, that it is not true? Even (some of?) the Israelis have already yielded to the truth:

"In 2007 a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians, according to a number of polls, preferred the two-state solution over any other solution as a means of resolving the conflict."

Yaar, Ephraim and Tamar Hermann."Just another forgotten peace summit." Haaretz. 11 December 2007.

 

1. All your examples are naturally crimes against humanity by the modern standards. However only Israel has been and is still violating the UN resolutions - which clearly demonstrate how the World sees the situation. AFAIK both New Zealand and the USA are trying to compensate for their crimes - Israel is not.

2. In Knesset there are 12 Arab members, although one is a Druze, who don't want to be counted as part of the Arabs. The total number of MPs is 120, so the share of the Arabs is max 10 %. Since the share of the Arabs in Israel exceeds 20 % their share in Knesset is not representative.

One of the problems is, that the supressed Palestinians should need to apply for the citizenship of the foreign invader state in order to be able to vote. Naturally many of them see that as an impossible insult to swallow as the native inhabitants of the land. Israel naturally thanks and keeps advertising herself as "a western democracy" with the handful of Arab MPs as mannequins - and continues her ethnic crimes.

"According to a study commissioned by the Arab Association of Human Rights entitled "Silencing Dissent," over the past three years, eight of nine of these Arab Knesset members have been beaten by Israeli forces during demonstrations."

Silencing Dissent Report, p. 8.

"Most recently according to the report, legislation has been passed, including three election laws [e.g., banning political parties], and two Knesset related laws aimed to "significantly curb the minority [Arab population] right to choose a public representative and for those representatives to develop independent political platforms and carry out their duties""

Silencing Dissent Report

3. Totally pointless. There has always been the land - and her inhabitants - if not an independent state. Every country/state has a beginning at some point. None has existed for ever.

It's also totally pointless to include those areas to the discussion, where the Palestinians - nor the Jews - of nowadays Palestine/Israel have never lived. You could have shown a map with Antarktis included as well.

The meanings of the words also change with time. NOW the Palestinians mean those (Arabs) who (or their parents/Grandparents) live/have lived in nowadays Palestine/Israel. It's no use to try to argue what some term meant before. It also doesn't matter what those people nowadays known as the Palestinians used to be called. They still have the right for their homes and properties, which are in Palestine/Israel of today. That doesn't change, even if they were called as the green aliens from Mars - nor if they had relations all over the world.

4. As I have already shown with sources, many (most?) of the immigrated Jews did not consider themselves as refugees nor did not arrive with nothing. Some surely were harrassed, but not all - maybe not even the majority. Israel welcomed them, because she actively wanted them to come and needed them.

5. Why should any country be forced to receive people, who the invader wants to be ethnicly cleansed? Of course their right is to get their own homes back.

The difference is, that invading Israel wanted the Jews to come and actively supported it, because the country had been emptied of the native inhabitants, and the land had become empty. The escaping Palestinians did not come to emptied lands in neighboring countries, since their inhabitants naturally had not gone anywhere.

 

1. Apologies if have done that. I sometimes add numbers - like in here - to make it easier to see what I'm actually responding to. Also sometimes have deleted those parts of the post I don't have anything to argue about. However I've never changed anything in order to make it seem something else.

You do know that you can go back to the original post by using the arrow in the top right corner?

2. I have already presented a post where the source estimates the share of the "volunteer" Palestinian immigration motivated by the Arab states as c. 5 %. Of course they could have stayed - and maybe lost their lives.

I have also presented Jewish sources where the Jews, who immigrated from the Arab countries, strongly object to being called as refugees and instead saw their move as volunteer and part of the Exodus.

The similarity lies only in the numbers, the Palestinians being the refugees and the Jews the immigrants - in general.

 

Straw man.

PLS point out one. I suspect what you will point out is your lack of reading comprehension. Most of your posts have done so todate.

Care to take a close look at those poles and see exactly what they stated? At least one I looked at had only two options a two state or a single state solution. The implication of the latter was that many of the Palestinians would become Israeli citizens. Given the current climate it's easy to see why this wasn't particularly attractive to either side. There are also questions of just which Palestinains have been polled and as to whether or not this was viewed as a temporary resolution or a permanent one.

 

Actually I didn't. Thank you for that.

And I have brought to question the accuarcy of those estimates. Note that Arabs were also tryig to drive Jews out of the area at the time as well. Why didn't more of them leave? Perhaps it was because they knew if they left there would be no coming back but the Palestinians had the assurances of the Arab states that were intervening that they would be able to come back to their lands. If there are several factors playing in why someone does something saying one factor was the cause is very questionable.

They may object to it but if they left because they had their lands siezed and were forced to leave they were refugees. Their emigration to Israel may have been volentary if they had other places that would accept them but that doesn't mean they weren't refugees.

 

The first is hardly a strawman; If you'd been to the West Bank, you'd see exactly how the settlements and security barriers make travel within the West Bank a very frustrating experience. In some cases what used to be a simple 20km drive, is now much longer in distance, and, considering the number of check points, you better plan on it taking the better part of a day. Israel has built roads to some of these settlements, prevents Palestinian vehicles from travelling on them, and these roads cut across pre-existing infrastructure. Effectively cutting direct travel between two points. As an International traveller I have it easy; I can zip back into Israel, travel south-north, and re-enter Palestine.

In an age, when it is clearly recognised that infrastructure and ease of movement of goods and services improves economic activity, strangling the roads has a direct impact on the economy. Apart from any individual considerations of being effectively hindered from visiting your friends and relatives. Thus "heaping misery".


Please show how the majority of Karjala's posts demonstrate a lack of reading comprehension?

 

Try having a baby on the way and getting thru the checkpoints...If your a Palestinian of course not Israeli.

 

It most certainly was.

All of which I'm willing to concede is true. However it is irrelevant to the charge of it being a straw man. Indeed your response indicates that either you don't know what a straw man is or you didn't comprehend what I wrote. For your edification a straw man is an easily refuted argument which you attribute to your opposition. In order to prove it's not a straw man all you have to do is find one of my posts where I state that the above doesn't "heap misery" on the Palestinians.


*** edited to fix numerous spelling errors/typos - sorry about that ***

 

The numbering in bold my addition.

1. The "crown". In otherwords not individuals.

No, but in those circumstances it would have been rather difficult - as the history proved - to stay under foreign power.

Maybe the commission "tried", but obviously not hard enough. The simple numbers already shown to you prove that. The common guilt for the Holocaust clearly surpassed the human rights of the native Palestinians.

2. The Jews were attacking the Palestinians (and the Brits for that matter...), so the neighboring countries felt reluctantly the need to do at least something. It was clearly the decission of the Israeli regime to do the ethnic cleansing.

Of course the Palestinians seeked assistance where ever they could find it. There's nothing wrong with it - at least if we believe Churchill and Roosevelt...

3. "No actions"? Additions in bold mine:

"By late April (1948), the U.S. State department, concerned to avoid a foreseeable conflagration after the British withdrawal, proposed a truce, managing to get the Arab states, that wished to avoid war, to accept informally proposals by Ben-Gurion they had previously rejected, including a Jewish immigration rate of 48,000 per annum. Likewise they promised the Jews assistance were Arab armies to invade subsequent to the truce. Aware that arm shipments from both Czechoslovakia and France were flowing in (for the Jews), and that local Palestinian forces were demoralized, the Jewish authorities turned down the proposal."

Baylis Thomas,How Israel was Won: A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Lexington Books 1999 p.69.

"Several Arab leaders, including King Ibn Sagud and Azzam Pasha, secretly requested the British to remain on for another year in order to avert catastrophe."

Benny Morris (1 October 2008). 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War. Yale University Press. p. 185. ISBN 978-0-300-14524-3. Retrieved 14 July 2013.

"Within the framework of the establishment of Jewish territorial continuity foreseen by Plan Dalet, the forces of Haganah, Palmach and Irgun intended to conquer mixed zones. Palestinian Arab society was shaken. Tiberias, Haifa, Safed, Beisan, Jaffa and Acre fell, resulting in the flight of more than 250,000 Palestinian Arabs"

Henry Laurens (2005), pp. 85–86

4. I don't read Arabic. The comments in the Western press are in line with the results of the polls. The Constitutions are often reflecting more of the situation in the past rather than that of today - as is the case even with the US Constitution - but maybe we leave that for now...

5. Sorry for that, my mistake. Seems that I lost the meaning of your question on the way. Here's the answer for the death ratio during the last 13 years:

Children only: 129 Israelis - 1.519 Palestinians, ratio 1 - 11,8
All: 1.104 Israelis - 6.829 Palestinians, ratio 1 - 6,2
Injured: 9.104 Israelids - 50.742 Palestinians, ratio 1 - 5,6

Some more interesting statistics:

US military aid in 2013: 8,5 million per DAY for Israel, 0 to Palestine
Homes demolished 1967-present by the other party: Israeli 0, Palestinian 27.000

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

6. It seems I am! Here's a list of the UN resolutions against Israel which the USA has vetoed in 1972-2011 - total 42 - and the list
of the resolutions against Israel which managed to get passed - total 102 -, out of which Israel has violated or is
still violating 72 of them.

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/un-resolutions-against-israel/

7. So far you haven't shown anything to support that claim...

8. ?

 

1. The repeating does not make anything more correct, but maybe/hopefully it helps understanding - since clearly one time of representing the facts (with or without the supporting trustworthy sources) has not been enough...

About the Israeli "democracy":

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/02/jewish-state-citizens-israel

"Firstly, foundational to Israel's legal framework as a Jewish state is legislation passed in the first few years, specifically the Law of Return, the Absentee Property Law, and the Citizenship Law. These laws shaped an institutionalised regime of ethno-religious discrimination by extending Israel's 'frontiers' to include every Jew in the world (as a potential citizen), at the same time as explicitly excluding expelled Palestinians."

"Secondly, there is a distinction in Israel between 'citizenship' and 'nationality', a difference missed by English speakers, who tend to use the terms interchangeably. ... this concept of 'nation' "strengthens the dichotomy between the state as the political framework for all its citizens and the state as the particularistic nation-state of the Jewish people"."

"Thirdly, Israel continues to be in an official 'state of emergency', which the Knesset has annually renewed since 1948. There are still 11 laws and 58 ordinances that depend on the state of emergency, covering a wide range of matters."

"Fourthly, Israeli law provides for the banning of electoral candidates who deny "the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people". Related to that, proposed bills can be rejected on the grounds that they undermine "Israel's existence as the state of the Jewish people". This is particularly instructive, given the emphasis placed by those trying to defend Israel's 'democracy' on the fact that Palestinian citizens can vote and be elected as MKs."

"Fifthly, there is the legislated role of the Zionist institutions, the Jewish Agency/World Zionist Organisation and Jewish National Fund. As I write in my new book, bodies intended to privilege Jews, by being granted responsibilities normally performed by the state, are thus "placed in positions of authority where they have the ability to prejudice the interests of non-Jewish citizens"."

"In over 60 years, around 700 Jewish communities have been established in Israel's pre-1967 borders - but just seven for Arab citizens (and those were built in the Negev for 'concentrating' the Bedouin population). The average Palestinian community inside Israel has lost up to 75% of its land since 1948, while a quarter of all Palestinian citizens are internally displaced, their property confiscated for use by the state and Jewish towns."


The UN general council and the international organizations indeed are! I have already shown you with sources that the autoritarian countries consists less than a quarter of all of the UN countries. In other words they don't decide anything.

I also find it ironic that many of those dictatorships of today you so worry about are actually supported by the USA and/or got to/stay in the power by the US backing! Most of the times they are also the loyal supporters of the US interests! The main problems of the UN are not the relatively few dictatorships - but the short-sighted use of veto by China, the USA and Russia to protect their selfish interests!

2. That seems to be only your belief, since you don't have any evidence against my post. Can you show any evidence that Israeli's record of human rights is better than that of her neighbours?

3. Not really, except for the problems of the UN I explained above. I find it bizarre, that some of the US citizens, who are supposed to be very much in favour of the private ownership of property, see it fair to denay that basic right from the Palestinians...

4. Based on the evidence of the last 65 years it seems to be the only solution...

 

If you referring to my example of the English/Americans moving "back" to Germany, then the answer is no. The purpose was to show the absurdity of lwd's argument.

 

But that's rather a onesided look at it isn't it. The Palestinains were also attacking the British and the Jews. Indeed looking at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_revolt_in_Palestine

Furthermore some Jewish leaders during this period seem to have made sincere attempts at negotiating a peaceful solution. I'm not seeing anything similar from the other side.

Do you not read what I have written or just not understand. The state of Israel was declared and it was attacked the next day. What actions did it perform in that brief period that were offensive?

While I don't speak Arabic either I have read very consistent reports that the line taken by the Arabic press is very different from what appears in the Western language versions. They realize that a key battlefiled is the opinoin of the people in Europe and the Americas. If they reallly wanted peace, especially if it was the desire of the vast majority of their constituants how hard would it be to modify their constitution. Of course it challenges you positon so you want to "leave that for now".

Which still doesn't support your claim. FYI death rates have little to do with murder.

Well looking back at your source it lists 87 countries as Free and 107 as not. See:
http://www.planetrulers.com/map-of-freedom-2011.pdf
I also note that many of those resolutions were ones that look to me like legitimate acts of self defence. It doesn't say how many were security council resolutions vs the general council. So while it may be true that Israel is violating them (some of them they didn't violate as they were after the fact condemnations) I simply don't see that as all that important.

You've been doing such an excelent job of proving that point there's no reason for me to do so.

 

Really? I'm actually still wating for your first post with much in the way of relevant fact.

I didn't see anything in the verbage that followed the above that in any way proved that Israel was not a democracy.
In particular I see little difference between this:

And provisions of most states (the oath of office of US legistlaters for example would seem counter to denying the right of the US to exist.

Actually your source can be used to show that the majority aren't free. Furthermore even some of those that may by free are hardly unbiassed in the matter. The economic power and thier willingness to use it vs some of the the other countries is also of note. Witness things like Sudan being on the Civil Rights commission.

What give you the impression I was worried about them? I'm not particularly (although I'm not particularly happy that we've supported them in the past either). I just don't give their word of their vote much weight especially when the topic is human rights.

Compare Israel to Syria. Clearly Israel has a better record. Compare it to Egypt the same. Lebanon at one point may have had the best record in the area but Hamaz and Syria destabalized it and it's hardly been a paragon for several decades. Jordan is still very much a monarchy but the Jordanian royalty does actually seem to care about the country and has a pretty good record one that may even be on a par with Israel. Going a little further afield Turkey may be in the same position although it is a democracy so maybe a bit better. Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Sudan, and Lybia(at least prior to the current regime) have had very poor records. Consider what would happen in some of those countries if say a Christian wanted to pray in public. In Israel it wouldn't be a problem (at least as far as the police are concerned). I wouldn't recomend it in most of the other countries with the exception of Jordan or Turkey.

???? Thus speaks a closed mind.

 

Starw man? Refugted? oppositon!?!?! )

I admit, I did not know what a straw man was, and concede your point. Thanks for edificating me.

But with that spelling, it's no wonder its difficult to read your writes... )

It can, on these kinds of passionate debate, occasionally become difficult to trace who said what when, and lump different characters (or personas, perhaps ) into a camp, and attribute opinions or leap in and misread. At least for me. My apologies.

 

Indeed speed typing and emotion can tend to make for some rather confusing spelling. Often I catch them but clearly missed these. I might even have had trouble with some of them. I will fix them if I can still do it.

 

Numbering in bold mine.

1. Of course it is important to know the history - correctly - to be able to understand the situation and different claims. One just cannot reason ones demands by 2.000 (-3.000) year old, non-continuous history and beliefs.

2. Yes. The hole idea of the state of Israel and the rights of the Jews to the "Holy Land" are based on the stories (not fully confirmed by archeology) of the Jewish kingdoms in the Old Testament.


3. Surely there are - made for supporting the Israeli politics and her myths of a "homogenious Jewish race" - not affected by the other peoples during thousands of years...

There are also other, more believable studies - not that any ancient genetical heritage would give any reasons for any claims for anything:

"'Jews a Race' Genetic Theory Comes Under Fierce Attack by DNA Expert"
Israeli Scientist Challenges Hypothesis of Middle East Origins Read more: http://forward.com/articles/175912/jews-a-race-genetic-theory-comes-under-fierce-atta/?p=all#ixzz2fubLFiEu

"Scientists usually don’t call each other “liars” and “frauds.”
But that’s how Johns Hopkins University post-doctoral researcher Eran Elhaik describes a group of widely respected geneticists, including Harry Ostrer, professor of pathology and genetics at Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine and author of the 2012 book “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People.”"

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/175912/jews-a-race-genetic-theory-comes-under-fierce-atta/?p=all#ixzz2fubnJlu1

"For years now, the findings of Ostrer and several other scientists have stood virtually unchallenged on the genetics of Jews and the story they tell of the common Middle East origins shared by many Jewish populations worldwide."

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/175912/jews-a-race-genetic-theory-comes-under-fierce-atta/?p=all#ixzz2fucPIlOJ

"But now, Elhaik, an Israeli molecular geneticist, has published research that he says debunks this claim. And that has set off a predictable clash."

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/175912/jews-a-race-genetic-theory-comes-under-fierce-atta/?p=all#ixzz2fucZXFES


"In “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses,” published in December in the online journal Genome Biology and Evolution, Elhaik says he has proved that Ashkenazi Jews’ roots lie in the Caucasus — a region at the border of Europe and Asia that lies between the Black and Caspian seas — not in the Middle East. They are descendants, he argues, of the Khazars, a Turkic people who lived in one of the largest medieval states in Eurasia and then migrated to Eastern Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries. Ashkenazi genes, Elhaik added, are far more heterogeneous than Ostrer and other proponents of the Rhineland Hypothesis believe. Elhaik did find a Middle Eastern genetic marker in DNA from Jews, but, he says, it could be from Iran, not ancient Judea."

"Read more: http://forward.com/articles/175912/jews-a-race-genetic-theory-comes-under-fierce-atta/?p=all#ixzz2fucCHPOw
Elhaik writes that the Khazars converted to Judaism in the eighth century, although many historians believe that only royalty and some members of the aristocracy converted. But widespread conversion by the Khazars is the only way to explain the ballooning of the European Jewish population to 8 million at the beginning of the 20th century from its tiny base in the Middle Ages, Elhaik says."

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/175912/jews-a-race-genetic-theory-comes-under-fierce-atta/?p=all#ixzz2fueuyatF

"Elhaik bases his conclusion on an analysis of genetic data published by a team of researchers led by Doron Behar, a population geneticist and senior physician at Israel’s Rambam Medical Center, in Haifa."

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/175912/jews-a-race-genetic-theory-comes-under-fierce-atta/?p=all#ixzz2fucraVQP

"In a news article that accompanied Elhaik’s journal paper, Shlomo Sand, history professor at Tel Aviv University and author of the controversial 2009 book “The Invention of the Jewish People,” said the study vindicated his long-held ideas."

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/175912/jews-a-race-genetic-theory-comes-under-fierce-atta/?p=all#ixzz2fudIByIk




4. Yes, FORCED by the USA:

"A telegram signed by 26 US senators with influence on foreign aid bills was sent to wavering countries, seeking their support for the partition plan."

Before & after: U.S. foreign policy and the 11 September crisis By Phyllis Bennis

"Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries."

Quigley, John B. (1990). Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice. Duke University Press. p. 37. ISBN 0-8223-1023-6.

"Harvey S. Firestone, Jr., President of Firestone Natural Rubber Company, with major holdings in the country, also pressured the Liberian government."

Hansard, 11 Dec 1947
Before & after: U.S. foreign policy and the 11 September crisis By Phyllis Bennis

"After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines' vote changed."

Before & after: U.S. foreign policy and the 11 September crisis By Phyllis Bennis

"The promise of a five million dollar loan may have secured Haiti's vote for partition"

Ahron Bregman; Jihan El-Tahri (1998). The fifty years war: Israel and the Arabs. Penguin Books. p. 25. Retrieved 29 November 2011.

"Shortly before the vote, France's delegate to the United Nations was visited by Bernard Baruch, a long-term Jewish supporter of the Democratic Party who, during the recent world war, had been an economic adviser to President Roosevelt, and had latterly been appointed by President Truman as the United States' ambassador to the newly-created UN Atomic Energy Commission. He was, privately, a supporter of the Irgun and it's front organization, the American League for a Free Palestine. Baruch implied that a French failure to support the resolution might cause planned American aid to France, which was badly needed for reconstruction, French currency reserves being exhausted and its balance of payments heavily in deficit, not to materialise. Previously, in order to avoid antagonising its Arab colonies, France had not publicly supported the resolution. After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France's neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands"

Barr, James (2012). A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle that Shaped the Middle East. London: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-84739-457-6.

Could you show me some sources about that "US withdrawal of the support" you claim?


5. I would call it extremely unfair. The fair share for Israel would have been around 20 % of the total area of Palestine (1947) - between the less than 7 % land ownership share (versus Palestinian 48 %) and 1/3 population share. Instead Israel was planned to get 56,5 % - and took 78 %, continuing to rob even more as we speak (write)...

Germany started the WW2 in Europe (together with the USSR). Many areas she lost had mixed populations - sometimes even the majority was non-German. Population of Kosovo was 90 % Albanian - against whom the Serbs started genocide and ethnic cleansing. However in Palestine of 1947 the Palestinians were the 2/3 majority and the original, often the only population. The Israelis were the foreign invaders and war-mongers.


6. I think I have already shown the evidence - which you haven't so far! It seems that you keep demanding evidences for everything - which I give - but you show me none, only claims and opinions.

"In the 1980s Israel and United Kingdom opened up part of their archives for investigation by historians. This favored a more critical and factual analysis of the 1948 events. As a result more detailed and comprehensive description of the Palestinian exodus was published, notably Morris' The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.[5] Morris distinguishes four waves of refugees, the second, third and fourth of them coinciding with Israeli military offensives, when Arab Palestinians fled the fighting, were frightened away, or were expelled."

Benny Morris (2004), The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0 521 00967 7 (pbk.)

The document details 11 factors which caused the exodus, and lists them "in order of importance":

1. Direct, hostile Jewish [ Haganah/IDF ] operations against Arab settlements.
2. The effect of our [Haganah/IDF] hostile operations against nearby [Arab] settlements... (... especially the fall of large neighbouring centers).
3. Operation of [Jewish] dissidents [ Irgun Tzvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisrael]
4. Orders and decrees by Arab institutions and gangs [irregulars].
5. Jewish whispering operations [psychological warfare], aimed at frightening away Arab inhabitants.
6. Ultimate expulsion orders [by Jewish forces]
7. Fear of Jewish [retaliatory] response [following] major Arab attack on Jews.
8. The appearance of gangs [irregular Arab forces] and non-local fighters in the vicinity of a village.
9. Fear of Arab invasion and its consequences [mainly near the borders].
10. Isolated Arab villages in purely [predominantly] Jewish areas.
11. Various local factors and general fear of the future.

Benny Morris: 1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians, ISBN 0-19-827929-9.


7. You said it didn't happen. I have shown it did. It starts to feel like there's never going to be "sufficient evidence to support my position" for you in anything - is there...?

Here's another one - and the last one by me in this matter...:

Guatemalans sue US for deliberately spreading illness in 1940s experiment

"An apology is not enough for Guatemalans deliberately infected with syphilis by a US medical team in the 1940s. Five months after the American taxpayer-funded medical experiment came to light, victims have brought a class-action lawsuit against the US government seeking compensation for resulting health problems."
...
"Seven named plaintiffs, which include both victims and heirs living in Guatemala, filed the lawsuit Monday in a Washington, D.C., district court on behalf of 700 Guatemalan soldiers, mental health patients, and orphans. The victims were all secretly experimented on from 1946 to 1948, the complaint says."
...
"The US government apologized to Guatemala in October when the six-decade-old project was first revealed in a policy journal, calling the experiments “clearly unethical” and condemning the “appalling violations” of medical ethics and human decency. Both the US and Guatemalan governments announced investigations into the case."

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2011/0315/Guatemalans-sue-US-for-deliberately-spreading-illness-in-1940s-experiment

 

1. There's nothing in the region - apart of mayby Iran's nuclear program in the future - which could challenge Israel's military supremacy - now or in the forseeable future.

2. The settlements are the no. 1 reason for those amateurish terrorist attacks. Naturally many desperate, hopeless and enslaved Palestinians see the terrorists as heroes - as the fundamental Israelis see the executors of the state terrorism of Israel.

3. Because it is already as strong as it can be.

 

The numbering in bold mine.

1. Yes, they are. I already answered this with the sources.

You keep parroting straw man, straw man, but give no explanations nor sources of your own. I decode this as "I cannot give any counter-arguments"...

2. You argued before that the Palestinians left because the neighboring Arab countries asked them to. I have shown an estimate backed with other sources, that only abt 5 % / a minority did so. Therefore the conclusion is that you were basicly/mostly misinformed. Nice, that you have changed your views now...

Still - no matter why the Palestinians left, it still did not nor does not affect their legal rights for own homes and properties.

3. Yes it does. See my earlier post nr. 217 about the study concerning all the refugees and all the reasons to leave.

4. I have shown you evidence. You haven't shown me anything except your opinions and unanswered questions. Do I see a pattern here...

5. A strawman (sic!)... I never said anything about the claims of the Jews from the Arab countries.

Not irrelevant. I DID say, that SOME Jews from Arab countries surely were harrassed and lost some - more or less - property. However it does not mean, that ALL the Jews, or even the majority, were expelled and lost ALL their possessions - as the Israeli propaganda wants us to believe.

The immigration of the Jews from the Arab countries was NOT similar than the escape of the Palestinians nor comperable despite of the roughly similar total numbers.

6. YOU asked for the numbers, not me! The IDF was having a war against the civilians, so maybe we shouldn't talk about the concequencies of "loosing".

I cannot quite follow your thinking. It's like complaining to Finns that we tried to remove the soviets from Finland too...!

I repeat: the Palestinians were the original, native inhabitants of Palestine. The Jews were not (except for the very small minority). The Jews tried to get the lands of the Palestinians - not the other way round.

 

Of course, the annexation of the Kingdom of Hawai'i by the US in 1893-98(?) is kind of interesting in this context as well.