Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point, but it seems to me this line of reasoning is intended to imply that it was somehow fair or just for the Jews to have declared the state of Israel as they did in Palestine. If this is not the intended implication, I fail to see where this reasoning is intended to go or what conclusions are supposed to be drawn from this framework where all of what was the Ottoman Empires is considered. The relevant framework is Palestine, west of the Jordan.
Israel just announced plans to construct 900 homes in East Jerusalem. The UN Secretary General issued a statement: "The Government of Israel's continued construction in settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory is contrary to international law and to its commitments under the Road Map and the Annapolis process, as stressed by the Quartet when it met in London on 2 May."
This seems relevant to the discussion. It's representative of what occurs under the "peace process".
What occurs under the peace process...is the launching of rockets from the returned Gaza.
See, Yirmeyahu..both sides have a position. You just see one..yours and the Pals. My favorite Pal position is open the gates and will will stop launching rockets long enough for us to fill our larders, ammo depots, send in a few bombers get some more rockets, etc. Then the war will start again. I really can not have this discussion with you...your inability to see that the Jews are small and isolated.
Yes, regrettably, the launching of rockets from Gaza does occur under the "peace process". I've already noted this and condemned it repeatedly in this discussion. So I don't know why you pretend I don't "see" this.
You, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge facts which are inconvenient for you and contrary to your stated position, such as the illegality of the occupation and the settlements, the criminal nature of Israel's violence against Palestinians, etc. Why the hypocrisy?
Reza, you accuse me of being prejudiced when in fact I have repeatedly acknowledged and condemned crimes of the Palestinians, such as suicide bombings and rocket attacks.
You, on the other hand, repeatedly EXCUSE the crimes of Israelis, such as the occupation, settlement activity, and violence against Palestinians.
You say you are a Christian. Surely you have read and understand Yeshua's condemnation of the "hypocrite"?
Muslims do not compromise...it is seemingly against their religion. They are allowed to tell tales to make their point. Yirmeny may be a nice person but doesn't have a clue about the history as he has limited access to the stories as do many who don't realize how much Muslim readings are revisionist. Some don't even mention the association with Hitler. Some don't mention how Jordan became such a large country, etc. Gazaans have chosen not to assimilate into the lands and have chosen war.
It's curious, Reza, that since my views do not match your own, that you assume I must be getting my history from "Muslim readings". I certainly read the Palestine Chronicle, al Jazeera, and other "Muslim" sources. I also read the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. Most books I've read on the topic were written by Jews (e.g. Chomsky, Oren).
Let's leave the rhetoric out of it and just deal with the facts, okay?
On compromise, throughout the "peace process", every concession was on the part of the Pals.
Now when you read the Jerusalem and Haaretz and the people's responses, I am sure you notice that they don't all love Iran, etc. But when you read Al Jazeera do you ever notice that the questions asked are what should the US do or Israel do about their President, or about some other internal situation and everybody has an answer on how to run this country. Even those from Pakistan, India, Afghanistan while news of from these countries tell of internal strife, Muslim VS Muslim, often starving.
No, I don't agree with that observation. I read the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Yedioth Ahronoth, Al Jazeera, Tehran Times, Daily Star, Dawn, The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Khaleej Times, and others. They all have their own biases. And they are all useful for learning the facts of a particular news item so long as you can recognize what is truth and what is spin and propaganda. I won't criticize them because I can easily point to our own US media as propaganda. Just look at the run up to Iraq
"Yes, there are those" Muslims who don't like Islam? If a person doesn't like Islam, they aren't a Muslim. You add they are "just like the Jews you choose to read". What are you implying? That the Jewish authors I have read on the topic don't like Judaism? They may not be practicing Jews (e.g. Chomsky), but that doesn't mean they "don't like" Judaism. But at least that could potentially make sense. Unlike "Jews", "Muslims" does not also denote an ethnic group as well as a religious viewpoint.
I have sent you numerous links to readings that tell a different story about the Mufti and then numerous one to history about the land of the Ottomans and how it was divided. You keep on ignoring this. Are you in an area that blocks and censors your utube...wherein you can't get the material. You insist you won't discuss these areas with me, and I wonder why. You do not seem to be unintelligent but call these particular points lies or revisionists. I am wondering, if this is the problem?
I haven't seen any links in any of your posts. But it's beside the point because I have never once debated with you that the Mufti was a bigot and a war criminal who collaborated with the Nazis, so you needn't convince me of that.
but don't you think that the Jews living in the land were a bit intimdated by the Nazis in full dress who were walking around the territory and visiting the Jewish holy sites etc. Especially at the guest of the Muslims that you claim lived peacefully with their neighbors? How friendly was that?
YouTube doesn't allow links to be posted. I'm looking at the same screen you are. You may be posting them, but they aren't showing up. If you put a link in your post, it won't post.
Again, when did this visit of which you speak occur, this visit of Nazis to Palestine, to the Jewish holy sites?
Now, we're off topic and I'd like to get back to the point. When I proposed that the US should stop supporting Israeli violations of international law as a solution to the problem, you said if that happened Israel would cease to exist.
So I would like to know why you think it is necessary for Israel to violate international law in order to exist.
Is that supposed to be an answer to my question? I'll get back to my question momentarily, but first, it isn't "Muslim countries" who vote against Israel at the UN. There is an international consensus on the fact of law that the occupation is illegal, that the settlements are illegal. The US and Israel, the two nations which consistently vote against resolutions against Israel (the US often using it's veto) are certainly in a minority. No argument from me there.
I don't know what you mean by "blindly supporting Israel" so can't comment on that, so I'll just say that what the voting record at the UN shows is that the US diplomatically supports Israel's violations of international law.
Now, as to my question, I'll repeat it: When I proposed that the US should stop supporting Israeli violations of international law as a solution to the problem, you said if that happened Israel would cease to exist.
So I would like to know why you think it is necessary for Israel to violate international law in order to exist.
I am trying to understand your position. It would help if you answered my simple questions.
No one I know, here in the US or in Israel, or in Italy think Iraqis pulled of the attacks against the US...unless a few were involved, by chance. We believe it was Muslims...a group most likely run by Bin Laden...a spin off group from many places...part of Islam.
I was speaking of Americans, my fellow countrymen. I was pointing out many months before the war began that there was no evidence Iraq still had WMD, much less that they had active programs to manufacture them, and that Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda, much less with 9/11.
But I was in a minority. Polls showed 70% of Americans actually believed Hussein was involved in 9/11. Why? Because the US gov't used the same crude propaganda technique of association as you consistently employ here.
Yep, many of us believed there were WMD. Saddams refusal to let the UN inspect helped this. I never believed he was the source of 9/11 ...never and never did I hear any of my friends say they did.
They did think bin Laden and AlQaeda.
We did think Saddam was a brutal dictator and that he was invading Iran...sorry he didn'tand was torturing his people, he was. We thought his sons were evil as evil could be. They were. WMD, we thought our government knew. We were wrong.
Saddam did allow the UN inspectors to inspect, but that's beside the point. As I have repeatedly said, I was referring to Americans, 70% of whom actually believed Saddam was involved in 9/11.
The point is that they fell victim to the crude propaganda tactic of psychological association, which is the tactic you employ, consciously or otherwise, in repeatedly invoking Hitler and Osama bin Laden.
Yes, many may have believed this. Now let me ask you about you. Why are you living here? You really seem to hate this country? You have no faith in it or its future. I am a naturalized citizen and I just love it here. So proud to have my children have this open education.
Many believed it without evidence. I am not currently living in the States, but in Taiwan. My principal goal is to return to my own country, the country I love passionately, and for my wife to become a naturalized citizen. What evidence have you seen in anything I've said that I "hate this country"? Please quote me where I've ever said anything that could lead a reasonable and rational person to this conclusion.
When I criticize Israel, you say I "hate the Jews".
When I criticize the US, you say I "hate this country".
I would like to know just how, precisely, it is that you equate criticisms of criminal actions of governments with "hate" for the nation and/or for its people.
You seem all too comfortable using rhetorical devices such as this, ad hominum fallacies and such. It is intellectual and moral cowardice.
My goodness...I lived what I lived and saw what I saw. If you do not have the heart nor compassion to understand the hell that the Jewish people experienced or the effect of the Hitler visits to the Palestinian territory you are sadly missing a part of that heart and compassion.
You show no understanding of the need for the Jews to have a bit of land for a safety net especially after the Holocaust. You only see what is happening to the poor Gazaans not what they did to themselves..that led to what is happening. You don't give them credit for what they do give the Gazaans. You don't give them credit for allowing them citizenship, nor a vote in the Knesset, or even for allowing them to vote in the Gaza elections. You blindly support the anti Israelis.
I perfectly understand the desire "for the Jews to have a bit of land for a safety net especially after the Holocaust." What I don't understand is why you think the Arabs should have been made to pay for the crimes of Nazi Germany. What I don't understand is why you think the Holocaust justifies the expulsion of Arab Palestinians from their homes. If you want me to understand this, please explain your logic to me.
Jews always lived in the land...always, well before the Christians and the Muslims. Again you are saying Arabs or Pals. I am a Arab and I left my home because the Muslims made our lives miserable jealous of our business near the church in Bethlehem where we sold Christian memoribilia. It was the British that divided the land...they won the land from the Ottoman Empire after WWI and gave 90% to the Muslim countries, the last 10% was divided between Pals and Jews. Giving Jews the arid land.
Yes, this is easy to confirm: the original Palestine Mandate included what is now Jordan. From the maps I've seen it might not quite be 90& of the original mandate but easily 2/3 or 3/4 of it. Of the remaining land, the Jews had by 1946 already legally purchased about 6 to 8%. I think the main issue the Arabs had was that they didn't want to share the GOVERNING of Palestine with the Jews. They didn't want increased Jewish immigration which could result in a Jewish Majority.
I think the whole issue boiled down to failure of the Arabs to compromise. It's easy to look back and say "if only the Arabs had accepted the 1947 partition..." but I suspect that there was more going on behind the scenes than that.
Egypt and Syria in particular had plans of their own for Palestine. Lebanon and Jordan and Iraq also provided troops that would eventually attack the Jews. They each had their own agendas and were not willing to coordinate their armies. They lost.
I don't know all of the current issues that are involved in preventing a peaceful settlement but we all know that Israel has been able to make peace with other countries that wanted peace. Can it be that the extremists (on both sides) don't WANT peace because it would involve giving up too much?
These are rhetorical questions meant to invite comment from anyone, not just rezasantorini and Yirmeyahu001. :-)
There aren't many Jewish extremists except those that don't believe Israel should exist. Few don't want peace, even though they don't like Muslims. Israelis want peace, without suicide bombers and rocket launchers. They'd not mind sharing the water etc. Just not the terror. They'd like the Muslims to stop saying we will give you peace but we can't account for those Muslims that want to kill you..be they PLO, Hamas or whatsoever. That is how it has been.
Yes, Reza, I agree with this. Of course Israelis want peace, want an end to suicide bombings and rocket attacks. Just as Palestinians want peace, an end to the occupation and missile attacks and destruction of their homes and orchards.
"They'd not mind sharing the water". Yes, this is true. During Oslo, Israel demanded the concession from the Pals that it remain in control of the aquifer. It also wanted Jewish-only highways intersecting the W.B., military posts, access to airspace, and more.
Methusela, if you look at the so-called "peace process", every concession that has been made has been made by the Palestinians. The number of concessions made by Israel has been precisely zero. Of course, if you look at it through the framework of what Israel WANTS, it has made concessions. But that's not the proper framework. What Israel is LEGALLY ENTITLED to is the proper framework, and in this framework Israel's concessions have been 0.
The Palestinians have since at the early 70s recognized the Green Line as the potential border of Israel and sought a state of their own within that same border right next to Israel. Throughout the "peace process", Israel has maintained the illegal occupation and expanded illegal settlements despite promises to do nothing to prejudice any final settlement on a two-state solution.
Why would the Arabs accept, or be expected to accept, a plan that gave more than half of Palestine to a minority of its population? Why should we expect the Arabs to "compromise" in such a way, and why should we blame them for not choosing to? It was a totally inequitable proposal. Neither you nor I would accept it if we were in their shoes.
The relevant property of which we are discussing is Palestine. What is now Jordan was called Transjordan, not Palestine. In Palestine, Jews were a minority. Yes, of course Arabs were worried about the massive influx of Jews, both through legal and illegal immigration. They were concerned that the Zionists had openly declared they wanted Palestine as a "Jewish homeland". Naturally the opposed that.
"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?" -- David Ben Gurion
90% of the Ottoman Empire was given to the Muslim Arabs...the remaining 10% divided between Jews and Muslims. Don't forget the 90%. Convenient thinking.
Well, I don't agree that the land was "given" to anyone. The land wasn't anyone's to "give". Yes, the colonialist West occupied and divided the land, which is one of the root problems in the Middle East today, since it arbitrarily divided certain communities or united certain others causing ethnic tensions.
But what is your point? What conclusion are you driving at here with regard to percentages of land?
The Israel/Palestine issue is just one example of the Allies dividing & re-distributing conquered lands after WWI. New countries were formed and not always along lines of ethnic majorities. Look at Czechoslovakia & Yugoslavia. These 2 areas were later divided during WWII & there was quite a bit of animosity between enthic groups, particularily in Yugoslavia. While Czechoslovakia split into two states peacefully after the collapse of the Soviet Union, look at what happened to Yugoslavia.
When looked at from this view, the Arabs got more than their fair share of the land. While the Arabs were promised MOST of the land and not ALL of it, the Allies should have been more considerate of the religious claims to Jerusalem and declared that an "international city" from the start.
As it was, the small percentage of land allocated to the Jews from ALL of the conquered Ottoman territories seems quite reasonable when compared to Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.
I'm not sure what "view" you can look at the situation with that would allow you to arrive at the conclusion that "Arabs got more than their fair share of the land." It's simply a question of what the inhabitants of the land were legally entitled to. The Jews were not legally entitled to declare more than 50% of Palestine to be theirs. This prejudiced the rights of the Arab/Muslim occupants of the land. It was unjust, period. Not a matter of opinion, but of legal fact and equity under law.
My "view" was taking into consideration ALL of the land divisions that took place after WWI, not just the Middle East. It was that, compared to all other conquered territories, the Arabs fared pretty well even though the land that was eventually partitioned in 1947 contained a Jewish minority (30%) that got about 50% of that land. Not equally "fair" to all sides but not that much different than what the British did in India: splitting it into India and Pakistan in 1947.
We are talking about Arabs in Palestine, not Arabs in other lands. I fail to see the relevance of this line of reasoning. The Jews declared for themselves most of the land in which they were a minority. That's just inequitable, plain and simple.
Yep. Many examples. Saddam invaded Kuwait in part because of the claim that Kuwait had been a province of Iraq before the British chopped it off. The West bears much responsibility for the violence and tensions in the Middle East, and this is just one aspect of why this is so. There are other, more direct areas of responsibility, particularly with regard to the US.
When the Jews unilaterally declared the state of Israel, Reza, it was roughly along the lines of the 1947 UN partition proposal. I don't know where you get 5% from. Despite being the minority, that proposal offered more than 50% of Palestine to the Jews, and that's what they took, unilaterally. The owned some of it, but simply declared the rest theirs.
You speak as though this was owed to them. It was not.
Not to "split hairs" but, according to what I have read, the area of what is now called Jordan WAS part of the original Palestine Mandate given to the British at the San Remo conference in 1920. In 1922 the mandated land was split up and the area east of the Jordan river was designated as Transjordan. The map also shows what looks to be probably the Golan Heights as being given to Syria in 1923. :-)
Right, the Mandate included Palestine and Transjordan. We are speaking about Palestine, west of the Jordan River. The Jews did not take "5%" of Palestine. They took more than 50%.
An Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1945 and 1946 examined the status of Palestine. Jews had purchased 6 to 8 percent of the total land area of Palestine. This was about 20% of the land that could be settled and cultivated. About 46% of the land was registered in the tax registers to Arab villages, to Arabs living on the land, or absentee owners, and about the same amount was government land. However, most of this land was not privately owned.
The Arabs of Palestine had received much of their land in leases conditional upon cultivation or used land that was part of village commons. The partition borders were drawn to give the Jews a majority within the allotted area of the Jewish state.
Of course this doesn't make the partition "fair" but one should not take for granted that the Arabs of Palestined OWNED the other 92-94% of the land.
It would also be interesting to know what kind of compensation (if any) was offered to Arabs.
No, no one should not take for granted that the Arabs "owned the other 92-94% of the land", but it isn't necessary to do so to recognize the injustice that occurred.
We know the relevant facts, the Jews declared for themselves most of the land in which they were a minority, to which they were not legally entitled.
You own figures clearly demonstrate this injustice.
Reza, I am familiar with the history of Jewish residency in the area. Nonetheless, when the Zionist movement began and throughout the British Mandate, Jews were a minority in Palestine. Moreover, you tried to portray the Zionist movement for a Jewish homeland as a response to the Holocaust when it began many years before WWII even began.
Yes...they were original occupants even before the Ottomans. they always said they were to go back...but that is the bible.
With regard to land and percentages...Israel has 5%, about of the 100 that was doled out...after the end of the Ottoman empire. Ask Jordan and Syria and the other countries to give their land back...you are speaking foolishness. If the Muslims wanted peace they could have accepted the 5% given to Israel ...
they wouldn't didn't and will never. They chose WAR.
The extent of the Ottoman Empire isn't the proper framework for working out percentages of land control. The extent of Palestine, not including Transjordan, is the framework. Israel declared more than 50% of the land to be theirs, along the lines of the UN proposal.
What land did Jordan and Syria wrongfully take, or what land do they illegally occupy? And WHOM do you suggest they "give their land back" TO?
The Mufti visited Hitler in Germany. There are pictures of this I am familiar with. When did Hitler ever visit Palestine? If you're trying to post links, they aren't showing up, so please just tell me.
I associate the people of Iraq, those who worked with Saddam with terrorism. I do not associate
all Palestinians with Hitler, just those that welcomed him and his into their hearts. I throw in Bin Laden because he is a hero for some...it is not psychological it is association by acceptance of his behavious. No one is turning him in. Yet he speakes to them in a manny one speaks as a leader.
But, reza, based on this one man, the Mufti Husseini, and his relationship with Hitler, his "alliance", if you will, you made a sweeping statement that "the Muslims", and you include the Palestinian Arabs in this, had an "alliance" with Hitler. When I observed that the Palestinian people (Arabs) did not have an alliance with Hitler, you say I am wrong and persist that this was so.
You regularly employ such psychological association, a crude propaganda tactic, such as your mention of bin Laden.
Yrimeyahu...I lived in the area, I saw the welcome he received, even as a little girl I saw the terror he brought to the eyes of the Christians and Jews...I also saw the Muslims greetings as if he was going to make the Ottoman empire theirs. I don't care what you are reading it is revisionists writings, I lived it...
I didn't see his welcome literally but I did see the respect he received and the hope he brought to the Muslims...they thought he would give them the whole Ottoman Empire...Jewless and with Islam in charge...just as Europe would have no Jews, they wouldn't either. They'd not have to divide the land as per Balfour or any mandate. They never wanted that ... never.
What, specifically, are you referring to with regard to anything I've said that you call "revisionist"? Please quote me on anything I've said that is factually incorrect.
On the Mufti, again, I'm not debating him with you. Could you please state the point you are making in brining him up constantly? What conclusion would you have us draw based on what you say about him?
It was never hey Gaza was alone, Muslims are each separate and they won't interfere. hahah.
Sure...just like Iran and Syria aren't interfering now...just like bin Laden isn't Muslim and just like Fatah can't control Hamas and the other way around, and no one can take responsibility for the various splinter groups, ever. Wasn't Hezbollah suppose to leave Lebanonon? Who created the tension and kidnapped the soldier that started the Lebanese War against Israel?
Hey, reza, I can't make any sense of your nonsense (e.g. "Gaza...is part of the Muslim brotherhood"; to wit, MB is an organization of which individuals are members, not nations or territories). Why don't you just answer my simple question?
Why do you think it is necessary for Israel to violate international law in order to exist?
reza, there is no small difference between saying "Muslim brothers is what they call each other" and saying they are "part of the Muslim brotherhood."
Again, the Muslim Brotherhood is an organization of which individuals are members, not nations or territories. It is likely that there are Palestinians who are members, but to say "Gaza" is a member is nonsense.
I have not insulted you. If you feel insulted by my pointing this fact out, that's a reflection of your own conscience.
Calling me a liar is one of your names...I don't know what each Muslim group is call I reference the group of Muslims who call themselves Muslims and believers in Islam, Muslims, regardless of what tribe or name. That means Gaza part of the Muslim brotherhood and so is Iran and bin Laden
1) I have never called you names, including "liar". I observed the fact that you repeatedly make the false claim (i.e. "lie") that the Muslim Palestinians had an "alliance" with Nazi Germany. That is not an insult, it is merely a factual observation. If you feel insulted by my pointing out the fact that this is a fabrication on your part, don't blame me, look in the mirror.
2) When you first said Gaza was "part of the Muslim brotherhood", did you not intend for people to associate it with the terrorist organization? For surely you must be aware of the group known as the Muslim Brotherhood? I don't know of any literature in which the phrase "Muslim brotherhood" is used in the way you use it here, which you made no effort to clarify (that you simply meant a feeling of "brotherhood" amongst Muslims)until I challenged you on the point.
3) Are you not intending, when you say such things, for people to associate "Gaza" with "terrorism", the same way you lie about this "alliance" so people associate "Muslim Palestinian" with "Holocaust", in order to justify Israel's crimes? The same way you also throw in "bin Laden" here for the same kind of pyschological association?
These are crude propaganda tactics. Unfortunately, such tactics are effective, as proven by the numbers of people who came to believe Iraq was responsible for 911.
You called me names but do not insult... \I've heard denial before. Hitler \the Mufti existed met and planned, they didn't sign your "alliance" paper, but they "did the dirty xdeed" started to execute it. Muslim brotherhood as a group is to me Muslims who will stick together against Jews and others
...inspite of country and tribal lines. Iran fighting in Iraq, Syria in Lebanon the threats of bin Laden and Iran.
What was done to the COLE. London Spain. cheered by all of ISLAM. Hate US
reza, I have not once called you any names. If you wish to continue to say I have, please quote me where I did so.
What I have done, absolutely, (and you can quote me on it) was to observe the fact that you persist in this lie that the Palestinians had an "alliance" with Nazi Germany. That is a lie.
If you feel insulted because I call a lie a lie, don't blame me.
On the Mufti, I've addressed it at length and haven't anything to add to my previous comments.
Now, in explaining what you mean by "Muslim brotherhood", you say that certain terrorist attacks were "cheered by all of ISLAM". That is an absolutely false statement. Were I to make a similar sweeping generalized statement about the Jews, like "the murder of Palestinian children is cheered by all Jews", you would no doubt condemn me for it, and rightly so.
In fact, you make sweeping statements constantly, and I would ask that you try to refrain from doing so.
read my post giving you facts on the Mufti. Call it what you want. They had a deal. With regard to calling me a liar,,,you have, and I really don't care. It is your way. With regard to Palestinians the Gazans are Palestinians, it is just that saying the Palestinians without calling attentions to which when referencing all, you intone the whole population, not just the Muslims which makes some people think the whole Ottoman territory was Muslim, it wasn't. It is part of the numbers game.
Reza, I'm not debating the Mufti with you. I didn't say, "The Mufti didn't have an alliance with Hitler." I said "the Palestinian people (Arabs) didn't have an alliance with Hitler."
I don't know why you repeatedly equate "Mufti = Palestinian Arabs". He was not a representative of the Arab Palestinians. You made a sweeping generalization, saying that the Muslim Pals had an "alliance" with Hitler. That is absolutely false.
When did this occur? Certainly not during the war. Palestine was controlled by the British. Adolph Eichmann went to Palestine in 1937 but was refused entry. He met with Jewish leaders in Cairo. So please explain further what you are talking about.
Israel demands that Pals cede already built (illegal) settlements. It demands the use of Jew-only highways between those ceded settlements. It demands that any future Pal state grant Israel military posts within its borders, overflights within its airspace, control of the aquifer...
Again, you speak of the sliver in the Pals' eye but refuse to look at the blank in Israel's.
Israel demands that Palestinians cede to Israel land where settlements have already been (illegally) built.
Israel demands that any future Pal state allow Israeli military posts within its borders, Israeli overflights in its airspace, use of Jew-only highways between ceded settlement blocks, control of the aquifer...
These are some of the demands Israel makes of the Pals before it will agree to cease its own violence, which is on an immensely greater scale than that of the Pals.
As for making demands without negotiations, Israel continues to prejudice the rights of Palestinians, continues the illegal occupation, continues the siege of Gaza, continues illegal settlement expansion, continues the process of illegal annexation of territory; to wit, how can Palestinians "negotiate with that", as you put it? Neither side is blameless. You seem to think only the Pals are worthy of blame, however. There's a plank in Israel's eye you also need to remove.
Yes, Pals always begin with after this and this happens like the return of all lands, return of all prisoners and we get what we want we will consider negotiating nor more attacks. We will not discuss our past transgression or what led to them, only your bad.
On the return of all land, that is their right. The occupation and settlement activity are illegal, violations of international law.
As for the return of prisoners, most were kidnapped and are held without charge.
And you haven't looked at that plank in Israel's eye in this, your examination of the obstacles to peace.
Israel demands that Palestinians recognize its "right to exist"; in other words, that they recognize the legitimacy of their having been expelled from their land. (cont'd)
Well, I don't think anyone expects that Israel will give ALL the land back. That's a bit like the US saying to the Native American Indians "sorry 'bout that, here's all your land back". :-)
The 1967 green line is accepted as the starting point of any potential border agreement. And we're talking about recent history, not something that happened two hundred years ago. Let's prevent it from becoming a two-hundred year old problem by bringing justice to both parties today.
I think both sides are reluctant to admit their faults. That is human nature, after all. But both sides MUST do this to make an honest attempt at a mutually agreeable settlement. Someone is going to have to be the "better person" and be the first to admit their mistakes and ask the other side for forgiveness, which must happen before honest reconciliation can take place.
1) The pullout from Gaza was to gain political cover for increased efforts to annex large parts of the West Bank; the construction of the illegal barrier, the expansion of illegal settlements, the ongoing illegal occupation.
2) While Israel withdrew its forces, it placed Gaza under seige, even refusing to allow humanitarian aid to be delivered to the Gazans, despite please from human rights groups that they were facing a humanitarian crisis.
3) The day before Shalit was captured, Israel kidnapped two Palestinian civilians, a doctor and his brother, who joined thousands of other prisoners held without charge. Kidnapping civilians is a far worse crime than capturing soldiers.
4) Israel's assault on Lebanon resulted in numerous war crimes, including assaults on civilians, the use of cluster munitions (many provided by the US), and other indiscriminate attacks.
Sure Israel pulled out to be the bad guys, and to make sure Gillat was kidnapped, to have Gazaans bomb the internal holy places and start launching rockets. Yep, they were just bad Jews again.
Dork..they pulled out and they the stuff started happening ... instead of celebrating and getting to work on their country they starting beating their macho chests. We won we won. Now give us more.
I don't know why you're beating down these strawmen. I haven't made any of those arguments. I don't know why you attribute them to me.
And you criticize me for calling you "names" when I've called you none, while you then proceed to call me names. I don't care, really, except that it demonstrates your further hypocrisy.
What I do mind, however, is your slander, such as your assertion that I "hate the Jews" because I criticize Israel, which is pure intellectual and moral cowardice on your part.
Indeed. As an American, whose nation supports Israel's injustices against Palestinians, I say the US should take the lead in this role. It would be hypocrisy and moral cowardice for me to have any other position. The American people share responsibility for this in a very large way.
You asked about the conflict between Fatah and Hamas as to the "why". Well, the answer is that since the elections, the U.S. and Israel have sought to punish the Palestinian people for voting the wrong way. One tactic in this assault against the Pals was to pressure Abbas to perform a coup by dissolving the unity government of Ismail Haniyeh (ironically, it is Hamas' response to this illegal act, the takeover of Gaza, that is called a "coup" in the media).
As for Israel's role in punishing the Pals for voting the wrong way, it kidnapped a couple dozen of the Pals' elected leaders in an effort to make the Pals' government disfunctional, placed Gaza under siege, and escalated the process of illegal annexation of West Bank territory.
I'm afraid I don't follow you. You invoke the holocaust to justify Israel's violations of international law. Now you invoke 9/11. To what end? What is your point? What is your reasoning? What logic are you trying to employ to justify Israel's crimes here? You've lost me.
Israel is alone with no one but the US. What happened here with the twin towers was horrendous and that was illegal. What happened in Spain and LOndan and elsewhere. What Bin Ladin threatens is horrendous. Yet you have the nerve to act as if Pals are alone... You are not worth a discussion. I and speaking of oppression, Muslims did and do all they can write because I hope others see you for what you are. A MUSLIM who sees only a Muslim as worthy.
Again, why do you think it is necessary for Israel to violate international law (and for the US to support those violations), in order for Israel to exist? I believe this is the fourth time I've asked.
Yes, terrorism such as you note is, as you say, horrendous. What is the logical corollary you would have me draw from this? I see none. The acts of terrorism you noted were horrendous. As is Israel's terrorism against the Pals and other violations of international law.
And you never answered my questions. I've asked simple, straight questions, reza, in order to understand the reasoning behind your position. Why do you refuse to answer simple questions? I forces me to conclude you in fact have no reasoning behind your position, that it is simply an emotional reaction based on hate or resentment or some such feeling. You keep mentioning your "experience", as well, which, along with your dishonesty, reinforces this conclusion.
Yirmeyahu001..you speak like a Muslim, and one who was educated by the extremist who does not accept that Muslims had any part in the terror that has happened in the Palestinian territory nor what is NOW Israel, nor what was once where Jews and Christians lived nor whatever you cared to call it. You also speak as if you see through a lens with one teeny hole. As someone who sees through a lens of experience,
and it one that sees more than Muslims, but the right of all, you sicken me.
reza, when you aren't suggesting I "hate the Jews" for criticizing Israel or fabricating an imaginary "alliance" between the Palestinian people and Nazi Germany to invoke the holocaust as justification for the illegal occupation, you attempt paint me as a Muslim "extremist".
I know there's a lot of naive people in this world, reza, but honestly, do you really think anyone here is buying your nonsense? I, for one, don't appreciate having my intelligence insulted with such asinine nonsense.
reza, this is not about you. You have an over-inflated ego. I'm interested in your arguments, and the "facts" you present. If you can present facts from your own experience, fine. But thus far, you've presented nothing convincing to support your position. And fabricating and lying, or using strawmen ad ad hominums (like lying and saying I've called you names)doesn't get you any points with me.
I can see that the possibility for any sort of meaningful dialog with you is sharply deteriorating. You continue to refuse to answer the simple questions I have put to you or to address factual information in favor of fabricating and using ad hominem or otherwise fallacious arguments (i.e., your equating criticism of Israel's violations of international law with "bowing down to Islam" here, or, previously, with "Muslim extremism", "hating Jews", etc.) Asinine nonsense.
I've answered every question but you insist on ignoring the answers, calling me a liar, etc.
I can understand you not enjoying my putting all of Islam together and not wanting me to think that Pals are an isolated group, who are being picked on...but I don't. I see them as a group of Muslims being used by all of Islam to allow people such as the leader of Iran, bin Laden, whoever to shout out against Israel, "my poor brothers." You won't accept that they are just that...together and domineers.
As for your comment that I called you a liar, I would observe that I merely noted that you are lying when you repeatedly assert that there was an "alliance" between the Palestinian people and Nazi Germany. By definition, that is a lie.
As for the Is-Pal conflict being a source of grievance among Muslims, I would merely observe that it is a legitimate grievance.
They are Muslim people from the area of the middle east and reflect the feelings of the people...you think you can pretend that there is a difference. Arafat was his nephew and took leadership of the Pals. Egypt was one of the countries that attacked Israel at the begining. There is a Muslim brotherhood...they claim it all the time. Please...the world is not dumb...
Why to you use the pronoun "they" to refer to an individual? Yes, the Mufti was a Muslim from the Middle East. But he was not the Palestinian people. He did not represent the Palestinian people. In fact, he lost an election for the position by the Palestinian position and was only in his office because he was appointed by the British. And he fled Palestine several years before WWII even began.
Bottom line: Your assertion that the Pals had an "alliance" with Hitler is a lie.
As Methusela pointed out, the Jewish terrorist group LEHI appealed to Nazi Germany, proposing an "alliance" in order to expel Britain from Palestine, just as the Mufti sought to get Germany to prevent Jewish immigration to Palestine.
Again, the Mufti lost an election of the Pals and only obtained that title by being placed in office by the British. He fled Palestine in 1937, well before the start of WWII. He was not a representative of the Palestinian people.
Use whatever word you choose. The Mufti and his followers were supporters of Hitler. Go look up the history and hear what was said of this Mufti guy during the Nurenburg trials and the trial
of Eichman, years later. I will not call you a liar, just a typical Muslim who gets on a point and thinks saying it over and over makes it so. Yes, Jews are bad, Islam is the religion of PEACE...everything is the fault of Jews and the US. Read it on Al Jazeera views.
In what way did Husseini "support" Hitler? He appealed to Hitler. And who are "his followers" of whom you speak? Certainly not the Palestinian people, who voted AGAINST him in an election for Mufti. He was PLACED in that position by THE BRITISH. Does this mean the British had an "alliance" with Hitler, because they supported Husseini?
Why would you call me a liar? I haven't lied. You, on the other hand, persist in this lie that the Pals had an "alliance" with Hitler.
I am not a Muslim. I find it fascinating that you would think so just because I criticize Israel and the US.
As for your comment, attributed to me, that "Jews are bad, Islam is the religion of PEACE...everything is the fault of Jews and the US", it's very dishonest of you, considering I've repeatedly condemned the crimes of Arab Muslims throughout this discussion.
Why do you persist in being so totally dishonest? What do you expect to gain?
The Palestinian people did not support Hitler. This is a pure fabrication on your part. You point to one man who tried to appeal to Hitler to prevent immigration of Jews to Palestine and say this represented an "alliance" between the Pals and Nazi Germany. It was not. If I used this logic, I could say that since LEHI appealed to Hitler to help expel the British, that the Jews had an "alliance" with the Nazis. It's pure nonsense, a total fabriction.
Wrong, it wasn't the Palestinian people, it was the Muslims. I am a Palestinian, but a Christian. There were Christian and Jewish Palestinians. Why do some people not get the fact that the area, the old Ottoman Empire was not all Muslim. Why do the Muslims refuse to accept responsibility for the Mufti, the British eventually were victims of Hitler...that sure wasn't in the name of the Brits.
reza, I don't believe there was any confusion on the fact that there were Jewish and Muslim Palestinians. I've made the same point repeatedly.
But I'll rephrase: The Palestinian Muslims did not have an "alliance" with Hitler. That is a lie and a pure fabrication on your part.
I'd like to know how you think the actions of the Mufti justify Israel's violations of international law. Or, if that isn't the logic you're implying, then what is your point?
I'd also finally like an answer to one question in particular I've asked you a dozen times you seem particularly keen on not answering: Why do you think it is necessary for Isarel to violate international law in order to exist?
You call it a lie, I call it realistic. But, you see the Muslim Palestinians as nearly innocent and just victims in this and I don't.
I see them as people who don't want Israel or Jews in the area, they want control of all the remaining Ottoman Empire and feel much like the Koran should should have the legal right of being the law. Alas, we disagree. BTW, have you lived in the area?
I have answered your questions time and time again. You just don't accept my answers. You call me names. Call it an alliance, call it what you want...the Muslims and Hitler slept together, I gave you links and there are links on line. You refuse to accept them because they never I am a Muslim and I loved Hitler. Meanwhile the links are available. I will not
respond to this anymore. I have revealed my experience, that is all I can do. You call me names I call you fool.
reza, You haven't answered my questions. Take this one: Why do you think it is necessary for Israel to violate international law in order to exist? You never answered that, despite being asked a dozen or more times. And you never answered a dozen other questions.
I've never called you names. I merely pointed out that you continue to lie about this "alliance" between the Palestinians and Hitler. This is a factual observation. Where have I ever called you names? Another fabrication of yours.
are innocent and not backed by all of Islam and haven't been all along...they just happen to be
a tool of the rich oil laden ones. They are the
pimple that all are willing to sacrifice instead of allowing to heal. Nothing Israel has done compares to what has been done to Jews, the US, London, Spain, etc. You see no
corollary because you choose to pretend Pals are isolated and what has happened to Jews all over the world is the same.
Everywhere and even in the UN Muslim nations tie themselves to Pals...they vote in such a way to make it appear as if Pals treachery doesn't count but only Israel does bad things. No one
commented about the attack on the school of teens, on the rocket launchings on the years Jews couldn't pray at the Western Wall at the destruction of Jewish cemetaries, etc. I could go on and on...it is the mentality of the Islamics to say, "who me.? No, Arafat didn't speak with forked tongue?
As for treachery in the UN, your criticism of the bias of Muslim nations against Israel is perfectly valid. On the other hand, the most powerful nation in the UN, the US, which, unlike it's Middle East counterparts, sits on the Security Council and wields the veto, has a great bias in favor of Israel. It has vetoed dozens upon dozens of resolutions against Israel for its violations of international law. The US supports Israel's crimes financially, militarily, and diplomatically.
...Which brings us back to the question, and the answer, that if this US support for Israel's crimes were to cease, it would go a very long way towards bringing peace to the troubled Middle East. It would also go a long way towards preventing any future 9/11s, but that's incidental for our purposes here.
No..if the US would stop support for Israel, it would stop support for all allies. It would mean Muslims everywhere, not only the mid east would invade, as they did before as they do anywhere they can and are doing everywhere leaving their countries and moving in and demanding laws be changed. How terrible that 9/11 happened but even more terrible that he threatens again and Islam shuts up..how terrible that Jews aren't safe in Muslim lands. But they scream about bias towards them.
This whole comment is premised on a logical fallacy ("if the US would stop support for Israel, it would stop support for all allies"), so I won't bother replying to it.
I will, however, repeat my question: Why do you think it is necessary for Israel to violate international law in order to exist? I believe that's the sixth time I've asked now.
Where did you see me say the Pals are innocent? I've repeatedly condemned crimes such as suicide bombings of civilians or indiscriminate rocket attacks against populated Israeli areas. This rhetorical tactic, the strawman, will get you nowhere with me, and others here are not so unintelligent as to not be able to see through it.
Now, again, Arab and Muslim governments have a poor record of backing the Pals and have often turned their backs on their plight, rhetoric aside.
As for the Palestinian plight being a popular cause with Muslims, rightly so. It's a legitimate grievance in the region.
And I agree with you that nothing that Israel has done compares with what has been done to Jews (i.e., the holocaust). So what? Just what, exactly is your point? What logic are you attempting to employ? Does Israel need to commit its own holocaust against Pals, wipe out 6 million of them in extermination camps, before you recognize a crime as a crime?
Muslims in general, which included the so called Palestinian Muslims, not me and my Christian Palestinians, did embrace him and the Nazi's that came. Please do not treat this lightly for it scared the heck out of us who embrassed our Jewish neighbors..and it didn't scare Muslims. They as a whole did not care what happened to the Jews, then or now. Or even before the Nazi's. Islam wants religious dominance everywhere...
reza, "Muslims in general" did NOT "embrace" Hitler and the Nazis.
Moreover, even if there was a point to be made there, we are speaking of Palestinians, and not of "Muslims in general". The Palestinians did NOT have an "alliance" with Nazi Germany, and your assertion that this was so is a lie.
Lie, Lie, Lie, when you say Palestinians and reference that period of time you include me, my family and all the people of the Ottoman Empire who were not then part reassigned to other Muslim countries land, including the very increased area called Jordan. I was one of them and resent being called a Palestinian, for it intones Muslim to the world. They chose the word for purposes of propaganda. At once time I felt pride in the word but when it was used against the Jews it ceased to be.
reza, You sure are fond of strawmen. Once again, there isn't any confusion about the fact that at the time "Palestinian" included Jews as well as Muslims as well as Christians. I don't know why you keep attributing ignorance on this point to me when I've made the same point repeatedly. Your posts are becoming increasingly irrational and nonsensical.
Growing up in Bethlehem, I was a Palestinian...my parents read the Palestinian Post and my friends regardless of their religion were Palestinians. As we speak your posts become increasingly narrow and indicative of your background that sees the world through a slit..rather than a broad perspective.
I understand you were a Palestinian. Why do you make the point repeatedly? You needn't convince me, I've already acknowledged the point, and have made the point myself a number of times, that the word "Palestinian" at the time included Jews and Christians as well as Muslims/Arabs.
In what way do my posts demonstrate that I see "the world through a slit...rather than a broad perspective"? I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
We want peace !!!
mitya80 3 years ago
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point, but it seems to me this line of reasoning is intended to imply that it was somehow fair or just for the Jews to have declared the state of Israel as they did in Palestine. If this is not the intended implication, I fail to see where this reasoning is intended to go or what conclusions are supposed to be drawn from this framework where all of what was the Ottoman Empires is considered. The relevant framework is Palestine, west of the Jordan.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Israel just announced plans to construct 900 homes in East Jerusalem. The UN Secretary General issued a statement: "The Government of Israel's continued construction in settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory is contrary to international law and to its commitments under the Road Map and the Annapolis process, as stressed by the Quartet when it met in London on 2 May."
This seems relevant to the discussion. It's representative of what occurs under the "peace process".
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
What occurs under the peace process...is the launching of rockets from the returned Gaza.
See, Yirmeyahu..both sides have a position. You just see one..yours and the Pals. My favorite Pal position is open the gates and will will stop launching rockets long enough for us to fill our larders, ammo depots, send in a few bombers get some more rockets, etc. Then the war will start again. I really can not have this discussion with you...your inability to see that the Jews are small and isolated.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Yes, regrettably, the launching of rockets from Gaza does occur under the "peace process". I've already noted this and condemned it repeatedly in this discussion. So I don't know why you pretend I don't "see" this.
You, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge facts which are inconvenient for you and contrary to your stated position, such as the illegality of the occupation and the settlements, the criminal nature of Israel's violence against Palestinians, etc. Why the hypocrisy?
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
well I say the criminal nature of the Muslims of Gaza...
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Reza, you accuse me of being prejudiced when in fact I have repeatedly acknowledged and condemned crimes of the Palestinians, such as suicide bombings and rocket attacks.
You, on the other hand, repeatedly EXCUSE the crimes of Israelis, such as the occupation, settlement activity, and violence against Palestinians.
You say you are a Christian. Surely you have read and understand Yeshua's condemnation of the "hypocrite"?
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Muslims do not compromise...it is seemingly against their religion. They are allowed to tell tales to make their point. Yirmeny may be a nice person but doesn't have a clue about the history as he has limited access to the stories as do many who don't realize how much Muslim readings are revisionist. Some don't even mention the association with Hitler. Some don't mention how Jordan became such a large country, etc. Gazaans have chosen not to assimilate into the lands and have chosen war.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
It's curious, Reza, that since my views do not match your own, that you assume I must be getting my history from "Muslim readings". I certainly read the Palestine Chronicle, al Jazeera, and other "Muslim" sources. I also read the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. Most books I've read on the topic were written by Jews (e.g. Chomsky, Oren).
Let's leave the rhetoric out of it and just deal with the facts, okay?
On compromise, throughout the "peace process", every concession was on the part of the Pals.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Now when you read the Jerusalem and Haaretz and the people's responses, I am sure you notice that they don't all love Iran, etc. But when you read Al Jazeera do you ever notice that the questions asked are what should the US do or Israel do about their President, or about some other internal situation and everybody has an answer on how to run this country. Even those from Pakistan, India, Afghanistan while news of from these countries tell of internal strife, Muslim VS Muslim, often starving.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
No, I don't agree with that observation. I read the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Yedioth Ahronoth, Al Jazeera, Tehran Times, Daily Star, Dawn, The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Khaleej Times, and others. They all have their own biases. And they are all useful for learning the facts of a particular news item so long as you can recognize what is truth and what is spin and propaganda. I won't criticize them because I can easily point to our own US media as propaganda. Just look at the run up to Iraq
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
I only read books and comment by the Muslims who don't like Islam..Wafa Sultan, etc.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Muslims who don't like Islam? That's an oxymoron, like saying "Christians who don't like Christianity."
I read whatever I can get my hands on, from whatever perspective. That's the best way to get to the truth.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
I have also ready much from both sides and it's usually pretty easy to spot propoganda or obvious distortions of facts/truth.
But it is rather difficcult to find balanced information that truthfully represents both sides.
One of the sites that I think is fair and non-biased is the folowing: mideastweb(dot)org/briefhistory(dot)htm
We'll see if this circumvents the policy about not posting web links. :-)
Methusela1956 3 years ago
Yes, there are those...just like the Jews you choose to read....
rezasantorini 3 years ago
"Yes, there are those" Muslims who don't like Islam? If a person doesn't like Islam, they aren't a Muslim. You add they are "just like the Jews you choose to read". What are you implying? That the Jewish authors I have read on the topic don't like Judaism? They may not be practicing Jews (e.g. Chomsky), but that doesn't mean they "don't like" Judaism. But at least that could potentially make sense. Unlike "Jews", "Muslims" does not also denote an ethnic group as well as a religious viewpoint.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
I have sent you numerous links to readings that tell a different story about the Mufti and then numerous one to history about the land of the Ottomans and how it was divided. You keep on ignoring this. Are you in an area that blocks and censors your utube...wherein you can't get the material. You insist you won't discuss these areas with me, and I wonder why. You do not seem to be unintelligent but call these particular points lies or revisionists. I am wondering, if this is the problem?
rezasantorini 3 years ago
I haven't seen any links in any of your posts. But it's beside the point because I have never once debated with you that the Mufti was a bigot and a war criminal who collaborated with the Nazis, so you needn't convince me of that.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
I am sorry that your country blocks the links
but don't you think that the Jews living in the land were a bit intimdated by the Nazis in full dress who were walking around the territory and visiting the Jewish holy sites etc. Especially at the guest of the Muslims that you claim lived peacefully with their neighbors? How friendly was that?
rezasantorini 3 years ago
YouTube doesn't allow links to be posted. I'm looking at the same screen you are. You may be posting them, but they aren't showing up. If you put a link in your post, it won't post.
Again, when did this visit of which you speak occur, this visit of Nazis to Palestine, to the Jewish holy sites?
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Now, we're off topic and I'd like to get back to the point. When I proposed that the US should stop supporting Israeli violations of international law as a solution to the problem, you said if that happened Israel would cease to exist.
So I would like to know why you think it is necessary for Israel to violate international law in order to exist.
Would you please answer the question?
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
There are too many Muslim countries or countries with Muslim majorities who vote against the Jews in Israel...they are a minority. MINORITY.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Is that supposed to be an answer to my question? I'll get back to my question momentarily, but first, it isn't "Muslim countries" who vote against Israel at the UN. There is an international consensus on the fact of law that the occupation is illegal, that the settlements are illegal. The US and Israel, the two nations which consistently vote against resolutions against Israel (the US often using it's veto) are certainly in a minority. No argument from me there.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Doesn't that show that US doesn't blindly support Israel....
rezasantorini 3 years ago
I don't know what you mean by "blindly supporting Israel" so can't comment on that, so I'll just say that what the voting record at the UN shows is that the US diplomatically supports Israel's violations of international law.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Now, as to my question, I'll repeat it: When I proposed that the US should stop supporting Israeli violations of international law as a solution to the problem, you said if that happened Israel would cease to exist.
So I would like to know why you think it is necessary for Israel to violate international law in order to exist.
I am trying to understand your position. It would help if you answered my simple questions.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
No one I know, here in the US or in Israel, or in Italy think Iraqis pulled of the attacks against the US...unless a few were involved, by chance. We believe it was Muslims...a group most likely run by Bin Laden...a spin off group from many places...part of Islam.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
I was speaking of Americans, my fellow countrymen. I was pointing out many months before the war began that there was no evidence Iraq still had WMD, much less that they had active programs to manufacture them, and that Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda, much less with 9/11.
But I was in a minority. Polls showed 70% of Americans actually believed Hussein was involved in 9/11. Why? Because the US gov't used the same crude propaganda technique of association as you consistently employ here.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Yep, many of us believed there were WMD. Saddams refusal to let the UN inspect helped this. I never believed he was the source of 9/11 ...never and never did I hear any of my friends say they did.
They did think bin Laden and AlQaeda.
We did think Saddam was a brutal dictator and that he was invading Iran...sorry he didn'tand was torturing his people, he was. We thought his sons were evil as evil could be. They were. WMD, we thought our government knew. We were wrong.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Saddam did allow the UN inspectors to inspect, but that's beside the point. As I have repeatedly said, I was referring to Americans, 70% of whom actually believed Saddam was involved in 9/11.
The point is that they fell victim to the crude propaganda tactic of psychological association, which is the tactic you employ, consciously or otherwise, in repeatedly invoking Hitler and Osama bin Laden.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Yes, many may have believed this. Now let me ask you about you. Why are you living here? You really seem to hate this country? You have no faith in it or its future. I am a naturalized citizen and I just love it here. So proud to have my children have this open education.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Many believed it without evidence. I am not currently living in the States, but in Taiwan. My principal goal is to return to my own country, the country I love passionately, and for my wife to become a naturalized citizen. What evidence have you seen in anything I've said that I "hate this country"? Please quote me where I've ever said anything that could lead a reasonable and rational person to this conclusion.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
When I criticize Israel, you say I "hate the Jews".
When I criticize the US, you say I "hate this country".
I would like to know just how, precisely, it is that you equate criticisms of criminal actions of governments with "hate" for the nation and/or for its people.
You seem all too comfortable using rhetorical devices such as this, ad hominum fallacies and such. It is intellectual and moral cowardice.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
My goodness...I lived what I lived and saw what I saw. If you do not have the heart nor compassion to understand the hell that the Jewish people experienced or the effect of the Hitler visits to the Palestinian territory you are sadly missing a part of that heart and compassion.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Reza, please explain how it is that you equate criticism of Israel with "hate" for "the Jews" and criticism of the US with "hate" for the US.
And please explain how anything I've ever said is demonstrative of any lack of "heart" and "compassion" for "the Jewish people".
Thanks very much.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
You show no understanding of the need for the Jews to have a bit of land for a safety net especially after the Holocaust. You only see what is happening to the poor Gazaans not what they did to themselves..that led to what is happening. You don't give them credit for what they do give the Gazaans. You don't give them credit for allowing them citizenship, nor a vote in the Knesset, or even for allowing them to vote in the Gaza elections. You blindly support the anti Israelis.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
I perfectly understand the desire "for the Jews to have a bit of land for a safety net especially after the Holocaust." What I don't understand is why you think the Arabs should have been made to pay for the crimes of Nazi Germany. What I don't understand is why you think the Holocaust justifies the expulsion of Arab Palestinians from their homes. If you want me to understand this, please explain your logic to me.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Furthermore, the Zionist movement to make Palestine a homeland for the Jews was not a response to the Holocaust. It began well before WWII.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Jews always lived in the land...always, well before the Christians and the Muslims. Again you are saying Arabs or Pals. I am a Arab and I left my home because the Muslims made our lives miserable jealous of our business near the church in Bethlehem where we sold Christian memoribilia. It was the British that divided the land...they won the land from the Ottoman Empire after WWI and gave 90% to the Muslim countries, the last 10% was divided between Pals and Jews. Giving Jews the arid land.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Yes, this is easy to confirm: the original Palestine Mandate included what is now Jordan. From the maps I've seen it might not quite be 90& of the original mandate but easily 2/3 or 3/4 of it. Of the remaining land, the Jews had by 1946 already legally purchased about 6 to 8%. I think the main issue the Arabs had was that they didn't want to share the GOVERNING of Palestine with the Jews. They didn't want increased Jewish immigration which could result in a Jewish Majority.
Methusela1956 3 years ago
I think the whole issue boiled down to failure of the Arabs to compromise. It's easy to look back and say "if only the Arabs had accepted the 1947 partition..." but I suspect that there was more going on behind the scenes than that.
Egypt and Syria in particular had plans of their own for Palestine. Lebanon and Jordan and Iraq also provided troops that would eventually attack the Jews. They each had their own agendas and were not willing to coordinate their armies. They lost.
Methusela1956 3 years ago
I don't know all of the current issues that are involved in preventing a peaceful settlement but we all know that Israel has been able to make peace with other countries that wanted peace. Can it be that the extremists (on both sides) don't WANT peace because it would involve giving up too much?
These are rhetorical questions meant to invite comment from anyone, not just rezasantorini and Yirmeyahu001. :-)
Methusela1956 3 years ago
There aren't many Jewish extremists except those that don't believe Israel should exist. Few don't want peace, even though they don't like Muslims. Israelis want peace, without suicide bombers and rocket launchers. They'd not mind sharing the water etc. Just not the terror. They'd like the Muslims to stop saying we will give you peace but we can't account for those Muslims that want to kill you..be they PLO, Hamas or whatsoever. That is how it has been.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Yes, Reza, I agree with this. Of course Israelis want peace, want an end to suicide bombings and rocket attacks. Just as Palestinians want peace, an end to the occupation and missile attacks and destruction of their homes and orchards.
"They'd not mind sharing the water". Yes, this is true. During Oslo, Israel demanded the concession from the Pals that it remain in control of the aquifer. It also wanted Jewish-only highways intersecting the W.B., military posts, access to airspace, and more.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Methusela, if you look at the so-called "peace process", every concession that has been made has been made by the Palestinians. The number of concessions made by Israel has been precisely zero. Of course, if you look at it through the framework of what Israel WANTS, it has made concessions. But that's not the proper framework. What Israel is LEGALLY ENTITLED to is the proper framework, and in this framework Israel's concessions have been 0.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
The Palestinians have since at the early 70s recognized the Green Line as the potential border of Israel and sought a state of their own within that same border right next to Israel. Throughout the "peace process", Israel has maintained the illegal occupation and expanded illegal settlements despite promises to do nothing to prejudice any final settlement on a two-state solution.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Why would the Arabs accept, or be expected to accept, a plan that gave more than half of Palestine to a minority of its population? Why should we expect the Arabs to "compromise" in such a way, and why should we blame them for not choosing to? It was a totally inequitable proposal. Neither you nor I would accept it if we were in their shoes.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
The relevant property of which we are discussing is Palestine. What is now Jordan was called Transjordan, not Palestine. In Palestine, Jews were a minority. Yes, of course Arabs were worried about the massive influx of Jews, both through legal and illegal immigration. They were concerned that the Zionists had openly declared they wanted Palestine as a "Jewish homeland". Naturally the opposed that.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?" -- David Ben Gurion
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
90% of the Ottoman Empire was given to the Muslim Arabs...the remaining 10% divided between Jews and Muslims. Don't forget the 90%. Convenient thinking.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Well, I don't agree that the land was "given" to anyone. The land wasn't anyone's to "give". Yes, the colonialist West occupied and divided the land, which is one of the root problems in the Middle East today, since it arbitrarily divided certain communities or united certain others causing ethnic tensions.
But what is your point? What conclusion are you driving at here with regard to percentages of land?
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
The Israel/Palestine issue is just one example of the Allies dividing & re-distributing conquered lands after WWI. New countries were formed and not always along lines of ethnic majorities. Look at Czechoslovakia & Yugoslavia. These 2 areas were later divided during WWII & there was quite a bit of animosity between enthic groups, particularily in Yugoslavia. While Czechoslovakia split into two states peacefully after the collapse of the Soviet Union, look at what happened to Yugoslavia.
Methusela1956 3 years ago
When looked at from this view, the Arabs got more than their fair share of the land. While the Arabs were promised MOST of the land and not ALL of it, the Allies should have been more considerate of the religious claims to Jerusalem and declared that an "international city" from the start.
As it was, the small percentage of land allocated to the Jews from ALL of the conquered Ottoman territories seems quite reasonable when compared to Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.
Methusela1956 3 years ago
I'm not sure what "view" you can look at the situation with that would allow you to arrive at the conclusion that "Arabs got more than their fair share of the land." It's simply a question of what the inhabitants of the land were legally entitled to. The Jews were not legally entitled to declare more than 50% of Palestine to be theirs. This prejudiced the rights of the Arab/Muslim occupants of the land. It was unjust, period. Not a matter of opinion, but of legal fact and equity under law.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
My "view" was taking into consideration ALL of the land divisions that took place after WWI, not just the Middle East. It was that, compared to all other conquered territories, the Arabs fared pretty well even though the land that was eventually partitioned in 1947 contained a Jewish minority (30%) that got about 50% of that land. Not equally "fair" to all sides but not that much different than what the British did in India: splitting it into India and Pakistan in 1947.
Methusela1956 3 years ago
We are talking about Arabs in Palestine, not Arabs in other lands. I fail to see the relevance of this line of reasoning. The Jews declared for themselves most of the land in which they were a minority. That's just inequitable, plain and simple.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Yep. Many examples. Saddam invaded Kuwait in part because of the claim that Kuwait had been a province of Iraq before the British chopped it off. The West bears much responsibility for the violence and tensions in the Middle East, and this is just one aspect of why this is so. There are other, more direct areas of responsibility, particularly with regard to the US.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
The Jews were satisfied with the 5% of the total land. They declared it ISRAEL.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
When the Jews unilaterally declared the state of Israel, Reza, it was roughly along the lines of the 1947 UN partition proposal. I don't know where you get 5% from. Despite being the minority, that proposal offered more than 50% of Palestine to the Jews, and that's what they took, unilaterally. The owned some of it, but simply declared the rest theirs.
You speak as though this was owed to them. It was not.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Not to "split hairs" but, according to what I have read, the area of what is now called Jordan WAS part of the original Palestine Mandate given to the British at the San Remo conference in 1920. In 1922 the mandated land was split up and the area east of the Jordan river was designated as Transjordan. The map also shows what looks to be probably the Golan Heights as being given to Syria in 1923. :-)
Methusela1956 3 years ago
Right, the Mandate included Palestine and Transjordan. We are speaking about Palestine, west of the Jordan River. The Jews did not take "5%" of Palestine. They took more than 50%.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
An Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1945 and 1946 examined the status of Palestine. Jews had purchased 6 to 8 percent of the total land area of Palestine. This was about 20% of the land that could be settled and cultivated. About 46% of the land was registered in the tax registers to Arab villages, to Arabs living on the land, or absentee owners, and about the same amount was government land. However, most of this land was not privately owned.
Methusela1956 3 years ago
The Arabs of Palestine had received much of their land in leases conditional upon cultivation or used land that was part of village commons. The partition borders were drawn to give the Jews a majority within the allotted area of the Jewish state.
Of course this doesn't make the partition "fair" but one should not take for granted that the Arabs of Palestined OWNED the other 92-94% of the land.
It would also be interesting to know what kind of compensation (if any) was offered to Arabs.
Methusela1956 3 years ago
No, no one should not take for granted that the Arabs "owned the other 92-94% of the land", but it isn't necessary to do so to recognize the injustice that occurred.
We know the relevant facts, the Jews declared for themselves most of the land in which they were a minority, to which they were not legally entitled.
You own figures clearly demonstrate this injustice.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Reza, I am familiar with the history of Jewish residency in the area. Nonetheless, when the Zionist movement began and throughout the British Mandate, Jews were a minority in Palestine. Moreover, you tried to portray the Zionist movement for a Jewish homeland as a response to the Holocaust when it began many years before WWII even began.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Yes...they were original occupants even before the Ottomans. they always said they were to go back...but that is the bible.
With regard to land and percentages...Israel has 5%, about of the 100 that was doled out...after the end of the Ottoman empire. Ask Jordan and Syria and the other countries to give their land back...you are speaking foolishness. If the Muslims wanted peace they could have accepted the 5% given to Israel ...
they wouldn't didn't and will never. They chose WAR.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
The extent of the Ottoman Empire isn't the proper framework for working out percentages of land control. The extent of Palestine, not including Transjordan, is the framework. Israel declared more than 50% of the land to be theirs, along the lines of the UN proposal.
What land did Jordan and Syria wrongfully take, or what land do they illegally occupy? And WHOM do you suggest they "give their land back" TO?
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Reza, when was Hitler ever in Palestine?
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
mufti of palestine/ Look at the tea time pictures...or the pictures of his representatives. they were all over the area.
Please I don't have time for your detail picking
look at the site I sent you read.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
The Mufti visited Hitler in Germany. There are pictures of this I am familiar with. When did Hitler ever visit Palestine? If you're trying to post links, they aren't showing up, so please just tell me.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
I associate the people of Iraq, those who worked with Saddam with terrorism. I do not associate
all Palestinians with Hitler, just those that welcomed him and his into their hearts. I throw in Bin Laden because he is a hero for some...it is not psychological it is association by acceptance of his behavious. No one is turning him in. Yet he speakes to them in a manny one speaks as a leader.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
But, reza, based on this one man, the Mufti Husseini, and his relationship with Hitler, his "alliance", if you will, you made a sweeping statement that "the Muslims", and you include the Palestinian Arabs in this, had an "alliance" with Hitler. When I observed that the Palestinian people (Arabs) did not have an alliance with Hitler, you say I am wrong and persist that this was so.
You regularly employ such psychological association, a crude propaganda tactic, such as your mention of bin Laden.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Yrimeyahu...I lived in the area, I saw the welcome he received, even as a little girl I saw the terror he brought to the eyes of the Christians and Jews...I also saw the Muslims greetings as if he was going to make the Ottoman empire theirs. I don't care what you are reading it is revisionists writings, I lived it...
rezasantorini 3 years ago
I didn't see his welcome literally but I did see the respect he received and the hope he brought to the Muslims...they thought he would give them the whole Ottoman Empire...Jewless and with Islam in charge...just as Europe would have no Jews, they wouldn't either. They'd not have to divide the land as per Balfour or any mandate. They never wanted that ... never.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
What, specifically, are you referring to with regard to anything I've said that you call "revisionist"? Please quote me on anything I've said that is factually incorrect.
On the Mufti, again, I'm not debating him with you. Could you please state the point you are making in brining him up constantly? What conclusion would you have us draw based on what you say about him?
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Now then, reza, I've asked you a dozen questions you have refused to answer. One, in particular, I've asked about a dozen times.
Why do you think it is necessary for Israel to violate international law in order to exist?
If you would please answer the question (and the others), it would go a long way towards me being able to understand your reasoning.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
It was always poor Gaza.
It was never hey Gaza was alone, Muslims are each separate and they won't interfere. hahah.
Sure...just like Iran and Syria aren't interfering now...just like bin Laden isn't Muslim and just like Fatah can't control Hamas and the other way around, and no one can take responsibility for the various splinter groups, ever. Wasn't Hezbollah suppose to leave Lebanonon? Who created the tension and kidnapped the soldier that started the Lebanese War against Israel?
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Gaza is not alone...it is part of the Muslim brotherhood.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Hey, reza, I can't make any sense of your nonsense (e.g. "Gaza...is part of the Muslim brotherhood"; to wit, MB is an organization of which individuals are members, not nations or territories). Why don't you just answer my simple question?
Why do you think it is necessary for Israel to violate international law in order to exist?
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Muslim brothers it what they call each other...they are my brothers. Keep on insulting me..it just indicates your intellect.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
reza, there is no small difference between saying "Muslim brothers is what they call each other" and saying they are "part of the Muslim brotherhood."
Again, the Muslim Brotherhood is an organization of which individuals are members, not nations or territories. It is likely that there are Palestinians who are members, but to say "Gaza" is a member is nonsense.
I have not insulted you. If you feel insulted by my pointing this fact out, that's a reflection of your own conscience.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Calling me a liar is one of your names...I don't know what each Muslim group is call I reference the group of Muslims who call themselves Muslims and believers in Islam, Muslims, regardless of what tribe or name. That means Gaza part of the Muslim brotherhood and so is Iran and bin Laden
rezasantorini 3 years ago
1) I have never called you names, including "liar". I observed the fact that you repeatedly make the false claim (i.e. "lie") that the Muslim Palestinians had an "alliance" with Nazi Germany. That is not an insult, it is merely a factual observation. If you feel insulted by my pointing out the fact that this is a fabrication on your part, don't blame me, look in the mirror.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
2) When you first said Gaza was "part of the Muslim brotherhood", did you not intend for people to associate it with the terrorist organization? For surely you must be aware of the group known as the Muslim Brotherhood? I don't know of any literature in which the phrase "Muslim brotherhood" is used in the way you use it here, which you made no effort to clarify (that you simply meant a feeling of "brotherhood" amongst Muslims)until I challenged you on the point.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
3) Are you not intending, when you say such things, for people to associate "Gaza" with "terrorism", the same way you lie about this "alliance" so people associate "Muslim Palestinian" with "Holocaust", in order to justify Israel's crimes? The same way you also throw in "bin Laden" here for the same kind of pyschological association?
These are crude propaganda tactics. Unfortunately, such tactics are effective, as proven by the numbers of people who came to believe Iraq was responsible for 911.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
You called me names but do not insult... \I've heard denial before. Hitler \the Mufti existed met and planned, they didn't sign your "alliance" paper, but they "did the dirty xdeed" started to execute it. Muslim brotherhood as a group is to me Muslims who will stick together against Jews and others
...inspite of country and tribal lines. Iran fighting in Iraq, Syria in Lebanon the threats of bin Laden and Iran.
What was done to the COLE. London Spain. cheered by all of ISLAM. Hate US
rezasantorini 3 years ago
reza, I have not once called you any names. If you wish to continue to say I have, please quote me where I did so.
What I have done, absolutely, (and you can quote me on it) was to observe the fact that you persist in this lie that the Palestinians had an "alliance" with Nazi Germany. That is a lie.
If you feel insulted because I call a lie a lie, don't blame me.
On the Mufti, I've addressed it at length and haven't anything to add to my previous comments.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Now, in explaining what you mean by "Muslim brotherhood", you say that certain terrorist attacks were "cheered by all of ISLAM". That is an absolutely false statement. Were I to make a similar sweeping generalized statement about the Jews, like "the murder of Palestinian children is cheered by all Jews", you would no doubt condemn me for it, and rightly so.
In fact, you make sweeping statements constantly, and I would ask that you try to refrain from doing so.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
read my post giving you facts on the Mufti. Call it what you want. They had a deal. With regard to calling me a liar,,,you have, and I really don't care. It is your way. With regard to Palestinians the Gazans are Palestinians, it is just that saying the Palestinians without calling attentions to which when referencing all, you intone the whole population, not just the Muslims which makes some people think the whole Ottoman territory was Muslim, it wasn't. It is part of the numbers game.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Reza, I'm not debating the Mufti with you. I didn't say, "The Mufti didn't have an alliance with Hitler." I said "the Palestinian people (Arabs) didn't have an alliance with Hitler."
I don't know why you repeatedly equate "Mufti = Palestinian Arabs". He was not a representative of the Arab Palestinians. You made a sweeping generalization, saying that the Muslim Pals had an "alliance" with Hitler. That is absolutely false.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
I he was there he scared the daylights out of the Jews...doesn't this make sense?
rezasantorini 3 years ago
He or his representatives in full dress.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Which was it, Hitler or his representative? Because you said Hitler himself went to Palestine. That is false.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Yes, that is not true...I am not sure he himself went. But his men were all over the place. In full dress and with the intent of scaring the Jews.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
When did this occur? Certainly not during the war. Palestine was controlled by the British. Adolph Eichmann went to Palestine in 1937 but was refused entry. He met with Jewish leaders in Cairo. So please explain further what you are talking about.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
(cont'd)
Israel demands that Pals cede already built (illegal) settlements. It demands the use of Jew-only highways between those ceded settlements. It demands that any future Pal state grant Israel military posts within its borders, overflights within its airspace, control of the aquifer...
Again, you speak of the sliver in the Pals' eye but refuse to look at the blank in Israel's.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
(cont'd)
Israel demands that Palestinians cede to Israel land where settlements have already been (illegally) built.
Israel demands that any future Pal state allow Israeli military posts within its borders, Israeli overflights in its airspace, use of Jew-only highways between ceded settlement blocks, control of the aquifer...
These are some of the demands Israel makes of the Pals before it will agree to cease its own violence, which is on an immensely greater scale than that of the Pals.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
As for making demands without negotiations, Israel continues to prejudice the rights of Palestinians, continues the illegal occupation, continues the siege of Gaza, continues illegal settlement expansion, continues the process of illegal annexation of territory; to wit, how can Palestinians "negotiate with that", as you put it? Neither side is blameless. You seem to think only the Pals are worthy of blame, however. There's a plank in Israel's eye you also need to remove.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Yes, Pals always begin with after this and this happens like the return of all lands, return of all prisoners and we get what we want we will consider negotiating nor more attacks. We will not discuss our past transgression or what led to them, only your bad.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
On the return of all land, that is their right. The occupation and settlement activity are illegal, violations of international law.
As for the return of prisoners, most were kidnapped and are held without charge.
And you haven't looked at that plank in Israel's eye in this, your examination of the obstacles to peace.
Israel demands that Palestinians recognize its "right to exist"; in other words, that they recognize the legitimacy of their having been expelled from their land. (cont'd)
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Well, I don't think anyone expects that Israel will give ALL the land back. That's a bit like the US saying to the Native American Indians "sorry 'bout that, here's all your land back". :-)
Methusela1956 3 years ago
The 1967 green line is accepted as the starting point of any potential border agreement. And we're talking about recent history, not something that happened two hundred years ago. Let's prevent it from becoming a two-hundred year old problem by bringing justice to both parties today.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
I think both sides are reluctant to admit their faults. That is human nature, after all. But both sides MUST do this to make an honest attempt at a mutually agreeable settlement. Someone is going to have to be the "better person" and be the first to admit their mistakes and ask the other side for forgiveness, which must happen before honest reconciliation can take place.
Methusela1956 3 years ago
I think that the return of the land in Gaza could have been a start. As it was greeted with
rocket attacks and the kidnapping of the soldier
Shallit, I doubt that more land will be returned
without some major act by Gaza. The fact that Israel didn't invade Gaza then and then Hezbollah kidnapped more soldiers led to the
attack on Lebanon. The Israelis were very irate at the reaction from Gaza and it emboldened Hezbollah.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
1) The pullout from Gaza was to gain political cover for increased efforts to annex large parts of the West Bank; the construction of the illegal barrier, the expansion of illegal settlements, the ongoing illegal occupation.
2) While Israel withdrew its forces, it placed Gaza under seige, even refusing to allow humanitarian aid to be delivered to the Gazans, despite please from human rights groups that they were facing a humanitarian crisis.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
3) The day before Shalit was captured, Israel kidnapped two Palestinian civilians, a doctor and his brother, who joined thousands of other prisoners held without charge. Kidnapping civilians is a far worse crime than capturing soldiers.
4) Israel's assault on Lebanon resulted in numerous war crimes, including assaults on civilians, the use of cluster munitions (many provided by the US), and other indiscriminate attacks.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Sure Israel pulled out to be the bad guys, and to make sure Gillat was kidnapped, to have Gazaans bomb the internal holy places and start launching rockets. Yep, they were just bad Jews again.
Dork..they pulled out and they the stuff started happening ... instead of celebrating and getting to work on their country they starting beating their macho chests. We won we won. Now give us more.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
I don't know why you're beating down these strawmen. I haven't made any of those arguments. I don't know why you attribute them to me.
And you criticize me for calling you "names" when I've called you none, while you then proceed to call me names. I don't care, really, except that it demonstrates your further hypocrisy.
What I do mind, however, is your slander, such as your assertion that I "hate the Jews" because I criticize Israel, which is pure intellectual and moral cowardice on your part.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Indeed. As an American, whose nation supports Israel's injustices against Palestinians, I say the US should take the lead in this role. It would be hypocrisy and moral cowardice for me to have any other position. The American people share responsibility for this in a very large way.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
You asked about the conflict between Fatah and Hamas as to the "why". Well, the answer is that since the elections, the U.S. and Israel have sought to punish the Palestinian people for voting the wrong way. One tactic in this assault against the Pals was to pressure Abbas to perform a coup by dissolving the unity government of Ismail Haniyeh (ironically, it is Hamas' response to this illegal act, the takeover of Gaza, that is called a "coup" in the media).
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
As for Israel's role in punishing the Pals for voting the wrong way, it kidnapped a couple dozen of the Pals' elected leaders in an effort to make the Pals' government disfunctional, placed Gaza under siege, and escalated the process of illegal annexation of West Bank territory.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
What is it you call it when Israel attacks and
collective punishment...well that is true. Just like bin Laden bombing the trade center...which he admits and Muslims deny.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
I'm afraid I don't follow you. You invoke the holocaust to justify Israel's violations of international law. Now you invoke 9/11. To what end? What is your point? What is your reasoning? What logic are you trying to employ to justify Israel's crimes here? You've lost me.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Israel is alone with no one but the US. What happened here with the twin towers was horrendous and that was illegal. What happened in Spain and LOndan and elsewhere. What Bin Ladin threatens is horrendous. Yet you have the nerve to act as if Pals are alone... You are not worth a discussion. I and speaking of oppression, Muslims did and do all they can write because I hope others see you for what you are. A MUSLIM who sees only a Muslim as worthy.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Again, why do you think it is necessary for Israel to violate international law (and for the US to support those violations), in order for Israel to exist? I believe this is the fourth time I've asked.
Yes, terrorism such as you note is, as you say, horrendous. What is the logical corollary you would have me draw from this? I see none. The acts of terrorism you noted were horrendous. As is Israel's terrorism against the Pals and other violations of international law.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Yes, the US backs Israel. All of Islam backs the Pals. We have seen that time and time again. That is okay after all they are brothers.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
1) The governments of the Arab and Muslim nations have repeatedly turned their backs on the plight of the Pals, except in rhetoric alone.
2) There is nothing wrong with backing the cause of a legitimate grievance, such as that of the Pals.
3) There is a lot wrong with backing crimes and oppression, such as US support for Israel's violations of international law.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
And you never answered my questions. I've asked simple, straight questions, reza, in order to understand the reasoning behind your position. Why do you refuse to answer simple questions? I forces me to conclude you in fact have no reasoning behind your position, that it is simply an emotional reaction based on hate or resentment or some such feeling. You keep mentioning your "experience", as well, which, along with your dishonesty, reinforces this conclusion.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Yirmeyahu001..you speak like a Muslim, and one who was educated by the extremist who does not accept that Muslims had any part in the terror that has happened in the Palestinian territory nor what is NOW Israel, nor what was once where Jews and Christians lived nor whatever you cared to call it. You also speak as if you see through a lens with one teeny hole. As someone who sees through a lens of experience,
and it one that sees more than Muslims, but the right of all, you sicken me.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
reza, when you aren't suggesting I "hate the Jews" for criticizing Israel or fabricating an imaginary "alliance" between the Palestinian people and Nazi Germany to invoke the holocaust as justification for the illegal occupation, you attempt paint me as a Muslim "extremist".
I know there's a lot of naive people in this world, reza, but honestly, do you really think anyone here is buying your nonsense? I, for one, don't appreciate having my intelligence insulted with such asinine nonsense.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Yes, I am in private talks with some people who did not even know that the Mufti existed, that Jordan blocked the Jews. I don't really care
what you think of my intelligence, I know the names you have called me and how you have not
acknowledged my experience. The Mufti did not just have tea and crumpets with Hitler and was
his name was brought up several times at the Nuremberg trial, by Hitlers soldiers.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
reza, this is not about you. You have an over-inflated ego. I'm interested in your arguments, and the "facts" you present. If you can present facts from your own experience, fine. But thus far, you've presented nothing convincing to support your position. And fabricating and lying, or using strawmen ad ad hominums (like lying and saying I've called you names)doesn't get you any points with me.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Yes, it is about me...it is about my experience.
Yes, I have an over inflated ego. In your mind not bowing down to Islam is egomaniacal.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
I can see that the possibility for any sort of meaningful dialog with you is sharply deteriorating. You continue to refuse to answer the simple questions I have put to you or to address factual information in favor of fabricating and using ad hominem or otherwise fallacious arguments (i.e., your equating criticism of Israel's violations of international law with "bowing down to Islam" here, or, previously, with "Muslim extremism", "hating Jews", etc.) Asinine nonsense.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
I've answered every question but you insist on ignoring the answers, calling me a liar, etc.
I can understand you not enjoying my putting all of Islam together and not wanting me to think that Pals are an isolated group, who are being picked on...but I don't. I see them as a group of Muslims being used by all of Islam to allow people such as the leader of Iran, bin Laden, whoever to shout out against Israel, "my poor brothers." You won't accept that they are just that...together and domineers.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
No, reza, you haven't answered my questions. Here are a few that you haven't answered:
Why do you think it necessary for Israel to violate international law in order to exist?
If Israel ceased from violating international law, why would Muslim nations suddenly become intent on attacking Israel?
What is your reasoning behind justifying Israel's violations of international law by invoking Hitler and the holocaust?
(cont'd)
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
(cont'd)
If the holocaust is justification for taking land and giving it to Jews, shouldn't Israel be in Europe?
Does the fact that Jews have been persecuted justify the occupation?
Does the existence of bigoted Arabs, either in 1965 or today, justify Israel's crimes against the Palestinian people?
What does the topic here have to do with bin Laden?
Should Israel also recognize that Jerusalem is an international city?
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
(cont'd)
As for your comment that I called you a liar, I would observe that I merely noted that you are lying when you repeatedly assert that there was an "alliance" between the Palestinian people and Nazi Germany. By definition, that is a lie.
As for the Is-Pal conflict being a source of grievance among Muslims, I would merely observe that it is a legitimate grievance.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
read up buddy...Mufti of Jerusalem. I don't know what you call an alliance, but I sure think that was one.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
And once again, "Mufti of Jerusalem" does not = "Palestinian people".
So, once again, your assertion that the Palestinian people had an alliance with Nazi Germany is a lie.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
They are Muslim people from the area of the middle east and reflect the feelings of the people...you think you can pretend that there is a difference. Arafat was his nephew and took leadership of the Pals. Egypt was one of the countries that attacked Israel at the begining. There is a Muslim brotherhood...they claim it all the time. Please...the world is not dumb...
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Why to you use the pronoun "they" to refer to an individual? Yes, the Mufti was a Muslim from the Middle East. But he was not the Palestinian people. He did not represent the Palestinian people. In fact, he lost an election for the position by the Palestinian position and was only in his office because he was appointed by the British. And he fled Palestine several years before WWII even began.
Bottom line: Your assertion that the Pals had an "alliance" with Hitler is a lie.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
They supported him as bin Laden and other anti-Israel/Jewish/Israel leaders and people dismissed today.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
As Methusela pointed out, the Jewish terrorist group LEHI appealed to Nazi Germany, proposing an "alliance" in order to expel Britain from Palestine, just as the Mufti sought to get Germany to prevent Jewish immigration to Palestine.
Again, the Mufti lost an election of the Pals and only obtained that title by being placed in office by the British. He fled Palestine in 1937, well before the start of WWII. He was not a representative of the Palestinian people.
Your "alliance" is a lie.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Use whatever word you choose. The Mufti and his followers were supporters of Hitler. Go look up the history and hear what was said of this Mufti guy during the Nurenburg trials and the trial
of Eichman, years later. I will not call you a liar, just a typical Muslim who gets on a point and thinks saying it over and over makes it so. Yes, Jews are bad, Islam is the religion of PEACE...everything is the fault of Jews and the US. Read it on Al Jazeera views.
These people know.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
In what way did Husseini "support" Hitler? He appealed to Hitler. And who are "his followers" of whom you speak? Certainly not the Palestinian people, who voted AGAINST him in an election for Mufti. He was PLACED in that position by THE BRITISH. Does this mean the British had an "alliance" with Hitler, because they supported Husseini?
Why would you call me a liar? I haven't lied. You, on the other hand, persist in this lie that the Pals had an "alliance" with Hitler.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Now, let's get a few more things clear.
I am not a Muslim. I find it fascinating that you would think so just because I criticize Israel and the US.
As for your comment, attributed to me, that "Jews are bad, Islam is the religion of PEACE...everything is the fault of Jews and the US", it's very dishonest of you, considering I've repeatedly condemned the crimes of Arab Muslims throughout this discussion.
Why do you persist in being so totally dishonest? What do you expect to gain?
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
The Palestinian people did not support Hitler. This is a pure fabrication on your part. You point to one man who tried to appeal to Hitler to prevent immigration of Jews to Palestine and say this represented an "alliance" between the Pals and Nazi Germany. It was not. If I used this logic, I could say that since LEHI appealed to Hitler to help expel the British, that the Jews had an "alliance" with the Nazis. It's pure nonsense, a total fabriction.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Wrong, it wasn't the Palestinian people, it was the Muslims. I am a Palestinian, but a Christian. There were Christian and Jewish Palestinians. Why do some people not get the fact that the area, the old Ottoman Empire was not all Muslim. Why do the Muslims refuse to accept responsibility for the Mufti, the British eventually were victims of Hitler...that sure wasn't in the name of the Brits.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
reza, I don't believe there was any confusion on the fact that there were Jewish and Muslim Palestinians. I've made the same point repeatedly.
But I'll rephrase: The Palestinian Muslims did not have an "alliance" with Hitler. That is a lie and a pure fabrication on your part.
I'd like to know how you think the actions of the Mufti justify Israel's violations of international law. Or, if that isn't the logic you're implying, then what is your point?
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
I'd also finally like an answer to one question in particular I've asked you a dozen times you seem particularly keen on not answering: Why do you think it is necessary for Isarel to violate international law in order to exist?
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
You call it a lie, I call it realistic. But, you see the Muslim Palestinians as nearly innocent and just victims in this and I don't.
I see them as people who don't want Israel or Jews in the area, they want control of all the remaining Ottoman Empire and feel much like the Koran should should have the legal right of being the law. Alas, we disagree. BTW, have you lived in the area?
rezasantorini 3 years ago
reza, what I called a "lie" was your lie that the Arab Pals had an "alliance" with Hitler. I called that a lie because it is a lie.
I'll let others read my posts to know my position and my arguments, rather than taking your summarization of my position at face value.
Yes, we certainly disagree.
As for your question, I'll answer this question when you answer the dozen I've asked you.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
I have answered your questions time and time again. You just don't accept my answers. You call me names. Call it an alliance, call it what you want...the Muslims and Hitler slept together, I gave you links and there are links on line. You refuse to accept them because they never I am a Muslim and I loved Hitler. Meanwhile the links are available. I will not
respond to this anymore. I have revealed my experience, that is all I can do. You call me names I call you fool.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
reza, You haven't answered my questions. Take this one: Why do you think it is necessary for Israel to violate international law in order to exist? You never answered that, despite being asked a dozen or more times. And you never answered a dozen other questions.
I've never called you names. I merely pointed out that you continue to lie about this "alliance" between the Palestinians and Hitler. This is a factual observation. Where have I ever called you names? Another fabrication of yours.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
You are a fool if you think you can pretend Pals
are innocent and not backed by all of Islam and haven't been all along...they just happen to be
a tool of the rich oil laden ones. They are the
pimple that all are willing to sacrifice instead of allowing to heal. Nothing Israel has done compares to what has been done to Jews, the US, London, Spain, etc. You see no
corollary because you choose to pretend Pals are isolated and what has happened to Jews all over the world is the same.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
Everywhere and even in the UN Muslim nations tie themselves to Pals...they vote in such a way to make it appear as if Pals treachery doesn't count but only Israel does bad things. No one
commented about the attack on the school of teens, on the rocket launchings on the years Jews couldn't pray at the Western Wall at the destruction of Jewish cemetaries, etc. I could go on and on...it is the mentality of the Islamics to say, "who me.? No, Arafat didn't speak with forked tongue?
rezasantorini 3 years ago
As for treachery in the UN, your criticism of the bias of Muslim nations against Israel is perfectly valid. On the other hand, the most powerful nation in the UN, the US, which, unlike it's Middle East counterparts, sits on the Security Council and wields the veto, has a great bias in favor of Israel. It has vetoed dozens upon dozens of resolutions against Israel for its violations of international law. The US supports Israel's crimes financially, militarily, and diplomatically.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
...Which brings us back to the question, and the answer, that if this US support for Israel's crimes were to cease, it would go a very long way towards bringing peace to the troubled Middle East. It would also go a long way towards preventing any future 9/11s, but that's incidental for our purposes here.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
No..if the US would stop support for Israel, it would stop support for all allies. It would mean Muslims everywhere, not only the mid east would invade, as they did before as they do anywhere they can and are doing everywhere leaving their countries and moving in and demanding laws be changed. How terrible that 9/11 happened but even more terrible that he threatens again and Islam shuts up..how terrible that Jews aren't safe in Muslim lands. But they scream about bias towards them.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
This whole comment is premised on a logical fallacy ("if the US would stop support for Israel, it would stop support for all allies"), so I won't bother replying to it.
I will, however, repeat my question: Why do you think it is necessary for Israel to violate international law in order to exist? I believe that's the sixth time I've asked now.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Where did you see me say the Pals are innocent? I've repeatedly condemned crimes such as suicide bombings of civilians or indiscriminate rocket attacks against populated Israeli areas. This rhetorical tactic, the strawman, will get you nowhere with me, and others here are not so unintelligent as to not be able to see through it.
Now, again, Arab and Muslim governments have a poor record of backing the Pals and have often turned their backs on their plight, rhetoric aside.
(cont'd)
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
As for the Palestinian plight being a popular cause with Muslims, rightly so. It's a legitimate grievance in the region.
And I agree with you that nothing that Israel has done compares with what has been done to Jews (i.e., the holocaust). So what? Just what, exactly is your point? What logic are you attempting to employ? Does Israel need to commit its own holocaust against Pals, wipe out 6 million of them in extermination camps, before you recognize a crime as a crime?
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Muslims in general, which included the so called Palestinian Muslims, not me and my Christian Palestinians, did embrace him and the Nazi's that came. Please do not treat this lightly for it scared the heck out of us who embrassed our Jewish neighbors..and it didn't scare Muslims. They as a whole did not care what happened to the Jews, then or now. Or even before the Nazi's. Islam wants religious dominance everywhere...
rezasantorini 3 years ago
reza, "Muslims in general" did NOT "embrace" Hitler and the Nazis.
Moreover, even if there was a point to be made there, we are speaking of Palestinians, and not of "Muslims in general". The Palestinians did NOT have an "alliance" with Nazi Germany, and your assertion that this was so is a lie.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
wrong, wrong, wrong and then again wrong. Where were you during this time?
rezasantorini 3 years ago
reza, it is not "wrong" to say that "Palestinians did NOT have an 'alliance' with Nazi Germany".
On the contrary, it is a LIE to say "Palestinians had an 'alliance' with Nazi Germany."
Which is the lie you've repeatedly tried to pawn off on people here.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Lie, Lie, Lie, when you say Palestinians and reference that period of time you include me, my family and all the people of the Ottoman Empire who were not then part reassigned to other Muslim countries land, including the very increased area called Jordan. I was one of them and resent being called a Palestinian, for it intones Muslim to the world. They chose the word for purposes of propaganda. At once time I felt pride in the word but when it was used against the Jews it ceased to be.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
reza, You sure are fond of strawmen. Once again, there isn't any confusion about the fact that at the time "Palestinian" included Jews as well as Muslims as well as Christians. I don't know why you keep attributing ignorance on this point to me when I've made the same point repeatedly. Your posts are becoming increasingly irrational and nonsensical.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago
Growing up in Bethlehem, I was a Palestinian...my parents read the Palestinian Post and my friends regardless of their religion were Palestinians. As we speak your posts become increasingly narrow and indicative of your background that sees the world through a slit..rather than a broad perspective.
rezasantorini 3 years ago
I understand you were a Palestinian. Why do you make the point repeatedly? You needn't convince me, I've already acknowledged the point, and have made the point myself a number of times, that the word "Palestinian" at the time included Jews and Christians as well as Muslims/Arabs.
In what way do my posts demonstrate that I see "the world through a slit...rather than a broad perspective"? I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
Yirmeyahu001 3 years ago