Yusuf Abramjee tweet

And Jordan, est 1946 in the bulk of what was then the Palestine mandate, you don't appear to mind Jordan taking over the bulk of the Palestine mandate, why is that?

Mainly because the establishment of Israel involved mass invasion by foreign immigrants whose declared purpose was the expulsion of the legitimate inhabitants. The change of ownership of the territories by the Ottoman Empire, Britain, Jordan left populations mostly unchanged.

Ah! but the Jews were there first!!!

Not first but simply part of a long line of peoples who considered that might is right. By their own accounts, the Jews left Egypt (fled/expelled?) and invaded Canaan and, by order of their God, butchered most of the inhabitants, keeping only the virgins as sex-slaves; much as Muslims have been doing for the last fourteen centuries - and still are.

I would suspect that the holocaust was regarded and used by the founders of Israel as a useful tool that gave them the leverage to persuade the UN that the native Palestinians had no rights worthy of consideration.
 
Mainly because the establishment of Israel involved mass invasion by foreign immigrants whose declared purpose was the expulsion of the legitimate inhabitants. The change of ownership of the territories by the Ottoman Empire, Britain, Jordan left populations mostly unchanged.

Ah! but the Jews were there first!!!

Not first but simply part of a long line of peoples who considered that might is right. By their own accounts, the Jews left Egypt (fled/expelled?) and invaded Canaan and, by order of their God, butchered most of the inhabitants, keeping only the virgins as sex-slaves; much as Muslims have been doing for the last fourteen centuries - and still are.

I would suspect that the holocaust was regarded and used by the founders of Israel as a useful tool that gave them the leverage to persuade the UN that the native Palestinians had no rights worthy of consideration.

Not forgetting the Jewish terrorist actions in British controlled Palestine before 1948.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)

Not sure what the solution is but both sides are guilty of some pretty horrible things.

Edit - There is even a Lehi Ribbon/Military decoration that can be worn by soldiers for "for military service towards the establishment of the State of Israel".

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter :confused:
 
Last edited:
Mainly because the establishment of Israel involved mass invasion by foreign immigrants whose declared purpose was the expulsion of the legitimate inhabitants. The change of ownership of the territories by the Ottoman Empire, Britain, Jordan left populations mostly unchanged.

Ah! but the Jews were there first!!!

Not first but simply part of a long line of peoples who considered that might is right. By their own accounts, the Jews left Egypt (fled/expelled?) and invaded Canaan and, by order of their God, butchered most of the inhabitants, keeping only the virgins as sex-slaves; much as Muslims have been doing for the last fourteen centuries - and still are.

I would suspect that the holocaust was regarded and used by the founders of Israel as a useful tool that gave them the leverage to persuade the UN that the native Palestinians had no rights worthy of consideration.

"Declared purpose"?? Where was this declared?
 
"Declared purpose"?? Where was this declared?

Considering the Israeli position on Palestinian right of return this would seem to be self evident. If the above is not the case then why prevent Palestinian refugees from returning to Israel?
 
Considering the Israeli position on Palestinian right of return this would seem to be self evident. If the above is not the case then why prevent Palestinian refugees from returning to Israel?

So it wasn't declared?
So your post started off being wrong, and no improvement was evidenced thereafter.
 
So it wasn't declared?
So your post started off being wrong, and no improvement was evidenced thereafter.

I never stated that it was declared - however based on the Israeli policy on Palestinian refugees the result has been much the same as if it was declared.
 
I never stated that it was declared - however based on the Israeli policy on Palestinian refugees the result has been much the same as if it was declared.

Correct. It was nightjar. My apologies.

I'd say based on the Palestinian policy of the rights of Israelis (Jews), it's even Steven all around
 
Truman Adviser Recalls May 14,1948 US Decision to Recognize Israel
By Richard H. Curtiss
May 1991: (American Educational Trust) With US President George Bush increasingly frustrated by the Israeli-Palestinian problem, a new generation of Americans is asking an old question: Why must the US deal with this seemingly intractable dispute?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the US is largely responsible for the problem because of two American decisions in 1947 and 1948. .

Most people who knew the Middle East at first hand opposed the partition plan, adopted by the United Nations on November 29, 1947. Patently unfair, it awarded 56 percent of Palestine to its 650,000 Jewish inhabitants, and 44 percent to its 1,300,000 Muslim and Christian Arab inhabitants.

Partition was adopted only after ruthless arm-twisting by the US government and by 26 pro-Zionist US senators who, in telegrams to a number of UN member states, warned that US goodwill in rebuilding their World War H-devastated economies might depend on a favorable vote for partition.

In a Nov. 10, 1945 meeting with American diplomats brought in from their posts in the Middle East to urge Truman not to heed Zionist urgings, Truman had bluntly explained his motivation:

"I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents."


Immediately after the plan was adopted, however, extensive fighting broke out between Jews and Arabs, just as US diplomats had predicted. The Arab states categorically rejected the partition by outside parties of an overwhelmingly Arab land.

David Ben-Gurion, soon to be Israel's first prime minister, had ordered his representatives at the UN to accept the plan, but not to enter into any discussion or agreement defining the new Jewish state's borders. To his followers, who, like the Arabs, laid claim to the entire land, Ben-Gurion promised that his acceptance was only tactical.

As well-organized Jewish militias seized Village after village assigned by the UN plan to the Arabs, and badly organized Arab villagers retaliated with bloody but purposeless attacks on Jewish vehicles and convoys, Secretary of State George C. Marshall urged Truman to reconsider.

….......

Marshall and a majority of diplomats at the UN saw a direct UN trusteeship, succeeding the British mandate, as the only solution to halt the bloodshed. Otherwise, they knew, neighboring Arab states would send military units across the border into Palestine the day the British withdrew, in an attempt to reoccupy the Arab towns and villages seized by Jewish forces. The State Department urged Truman not to grant diplomatic recognition to the Jewish state when the British withdrew, but instead to side with rapidly growing sentiment in the United Nations in favor of trusteeship. Truman wavered and, for a time, both sides in a bitter battle for the president's ear thought they had his support.
…........

Marshall had returned to government to serve as secretary of state to the inexperienced former vice president, who was ill-prepared for the presidency when it was thrust upon him by the sudden death of Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 12, 1945, just a month before the Allied victory in Europe and four months before the victory over Japan.

…...........Clifford writes: "Marshall firmly opposed American recognition of the new Jewish state; I did not. Marshall's opposition was shared by almost every member of the brilliant and now legendary group of presidential advisers, later referred to as the Wise Men, who were then in the process of creating a post-war foreign policy that would endure for more than 40 years. The opposition included the respected Under Secretary of State Robert Lovett; his predecessor, Dean Acheson; the No. 3 man in the State Department, Charles Bohlen; the brilliant chief of the Policy Planning Staff George Kennan; (Navy Secretary James V.) Forrestal; and ... Dean Rusk, then the director of the Office of United Nations Affairs...

"Officials in the State Department had done everything in their power to prevent, thwart, or delay the President's Palestine policy in 1947 and 1948, while I had fought for assistance to the Jewish Agency.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4077.htm
 
I agree with marine1, he is the smartest poster in this thread.
 
Why did the ANC resort to terrorism in the early 80's? Perhaps because confronting a vastly superior army directly would have been suicidal?

because the ANC were/are a bunch greedy, corrupt, wannabe plutocrats devoid of scruples who had no qualms targeting civilians in the pursuit of power. Cut from the same cloth as Hamas

Although to be fair I don't see Hamas putting tyres around kids necks, dousing them in petrol and setting them alight to "fight" the IDF like the ANC did the SADF :erm:
 
because the ANC were/are a bunch greedy, corrupt, wannabe plutocrats devoid of scruples who had no qualms targeting civilians in the pursuit of power. Cut from the same cloth as Hamas

Although to be fair I don't see Hamas putting tyres around kids necks, dousing them in petrol and setting them alight to "fight" the IDF like the ANC did the SADF :erm:

Yup, the SADF where totally blameless and would never target civilians..
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X