You don't know your history, buddy. The holocaust led to the Israelis going to Palestine and trying to create their own land.The events led to each other and Israelis/Jewish people had no place to go and they decided to come to Palestine. All the Jewish people I met know that Israel was and is not there's and never existed until after 1948. One thing I dont understand is why Israelis are repeating the same thing that happened to them during the Holocaust, but even 10 times worse?
@Samaher92 you're full of shit and yet you claim that HE doesn't know his history! and not only that, you claim that the jews have done something that is "10 times worse"!? fuck is wrong you?? could you possibly be a lying muslim? sorry for being an ass, but I didn't like your response at all.
@mbrown0315 U 4get that throughout the centuries there was a small % of Jews livning in the area.How else could the crusaders or Caliph U. ibn al-Khattab or others kill Jews in Jerusalem in the Midages.Even under Ottoman rule a cencus in 1875 showed a majority of Jews in Jerusalem.Also the Jewish Agency bought land in 80s of 19th C.Jews dried swamps&made the desert grow,where nobody lived in earlier years(Twain).If the Arabs hadn't rejected of living together there wouldn't have been a Nakba.
The Ultimate Justification of Israel isn't the Holocaust. IT is the Torah (Bible) where G-D says that the land belongs to the Jewish nation. Ultimately the whole world belongs to G-D. G-D created the world and He is in charge of it. + Arabs made war and LOST, where even according to the "international" laws, they forfeit their right to rule over it.
I am sorry your basic assumptions are wrong for example: Nakba, "palestinian people" both never existed ...i think there is much work to do before you deal with these questions...
@gingerXLL Palestinian people existed and still exist and the Nakba did happen. Stop living in denial and hiding from the reality. Palestinians lived in "Israel" first and their land was taken from them unrightfully by the Israelis. Sorry to tell you the truth, but you have to know that there is no Israel and Palestine will be free soon.
@Samaher92 they bought land before 1948. When they were promised to be invaded in 1947 they forced some out. After 1948 arab countries forced out the same number of jews. Many of the arabs who lived in palestine at this time had only lived there maybe 50 years(as long as many of the jews had).
Antisemitism was a catalyst of modern Zionism, a driving force for immigrants mainly from Russia, and what drove Hertzel to abandon mass conversions, etc. The Zionist movement would have started with or without Hertzel. Modern Zionism itself should be seen as a part of a much greater movement in western culture rooted in early modernity (17-18th century), in the eradication of theocracies\church kings and the creation of Nationalism (blood and land).
Let's start by syaing Hebrews basically means Israelite, or in an archeological term might mean proto-Israelite (and more). Israelite, who are referred to today as Jews since their integration with Judah in the 8th-7th century BCE, are one of the same - they are a NATION. Judaism is not a religion per-se. it's an integral and indistinguishable part of a national identity. Wanting the Jewish Nation to have a Jewish state isn't comparable at-all to Americans having a Christian state.
Judaism is a religion, but for many centuries it was practiced more or less exclusively by geographically disparate communities who, in many but not all cases, shared a genetic echo. By the 20th century, Judaism was less of a uniting factor. The fact is that there wasn't all that much in common between the atheist, socialist Zionists of Poland and the pious Jews of Yemen, except that they cherished certain common rituals (in different contexts) and shared a vague ethnic badge.
With increasing assimilation and the rise of progressive Judaism, Jewishness is becoming more and more of a subjective construct, ethnically and religiously. Conservative converts are welcomes as Jews by Conservative and Reform and Reconstructionist Jews but shunned by the Orthodox spectrum. The son of a Jewish father and a mother who converted Reform is recognized by certain people as a Jew, not by others.
@mbrown0315 Real Judaism is "Orthodox". All the other movements are the breakaways from it. If we look at places besides Germany and U.S.A. (now) where the other movements started we see that Jews of all places are almost all "Orthodox". Yemen, Uzbek, Israel, Iraq Poland- All Jews were historically Orthodox. Reform and other such movements only started not that long ago in Germany and spread like a cancer.not all Jews who are reform,are bad, but the movement is wrong from a legal point of view.
When brought to Israel, this leads to something I call state schizophrenia, in which various institutional "voices" make competing claims about a single person's Jewishness. The worldwide Jewish tribe is breaking up, the Jewish religion is becoming less and less the domain of the rabbis alone. It's open to interpretation. It's voluntary. Halacha no longer guides life in the shtetls, ברוד השם
But there are certain Judaic constants in all these different expressions of Jewishness, and I think these are the things that most secular and traditional (not orthodox) people refer to when they express a desire for a Jewish state: Hebrew as the national language, a national calendar that accommodates the traditional Jewish life cycle, Jewish iconography, etc.
These things constitute a beautiful Judeo-Hebraic culture more or less emancipated from dogma and an increasingly anachronistic preoccupation with notions of Jew-positive blood.
@mbrown0315 I hate the charter limit here. so i'll make it brief and we'll go personal with it. Basically, i think you are letting giving the Pharisaic interpretation of Judaism to interfere with understating the roots of ancient Judaism, and the reasons it was brought forth in the first place (to create a NATION!! under one king), the basic argument goes on from there. Hebrews anyway are not a good name to describe Israelites.
@mbrown0315 In Israel the problem goes far deeper. As orthodox rabbinical Judaism hijacked religious authority in Israel, for many historical reasons that have to do with the old Yeshuv, and psychological factors of secular people. But lets not go into DOSSIM in Israel, I'm getting edgy already... In any-case i think you're missing some very important points about Judaism and the Jewish people both ancient and modern, some of it because you buy into modern Orthodox Jewish perception of Judaism.
I hate when people say the holocaust justifies the creation of Israel.
WHAT THE F*** does the holocaust have to do with palestinians? Answer: Zero.
The English who had control over palestine at the time decided to throw the jews there because, afterall, arabs are nothing but a bunch of sand niggers.. Thats what really happened, jews stole the land and i understand they were put there but ..
I'll be surprised if Israel isn't nuked, honestly.
In Mr. Churchill wonderful words: when asked Zionism cannot occupy Palestine because Palestinians were already living there. He Said I do not agree that the dog (i.e. Palestinian) in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time.
That was the mentality of the establishment of the Zionist State, that the people there were considered dogs, sub-human just like the Africans,the Asian,Native Americans that should be concerned by white Europeans.
Did you watch my recent responses to SLCThunk (as I recommended)? In those videos, as in this video, I detail how early Zionism was not nearly as political as later Zionism. My argument in those videos was and remains that the Arabs had plenty of opportunities to cooperate with the Zionists but chose not to because they did not want to become outnumbered in what they considered their land. I provide real evidence, not obscure quotes from Churchill.
I did watch the videos but the evidence that you have provided I won't really call it evidence, consisting of semi-truths and half-truths of Zionist propaganda (u may not mean it).But the situation is uglier than you think. There are so many point I like to raise but lets first focus on the comment u have given and the above video.u displayed that it was because of the holocaust the State of Israel was establishment, this is a falsehood and my evidence is the Balfour Declaration of the Year 1917
You're being willfully ignorant. I make the claim in this video that Zionism was alive and well before the rise of Nazi persecution but was multifaceted in political outlook. The Jewish State paradigm arose in reaction to the rise of Nazi persecution. If you want more evidence, I can provide it. Look at the official cable message sent by the Arab countries to the UN before they launched the 1948 war. They say explicitly that Zionism started as a non-political movement.
Willfully ignorant??? Well thats a first, I have been called a liar not this.
I wasnt talking about when Zionism has initiated, I clearly mentioned and pointed out that it was not Nazi persecution that The Jewish State paradigm arose in reaction to it. The holocaust may have escalated Jewish immigration from Europe to Palestine but it wasn't the cause of Creation of Israel.
The Zionist almost 30 years ago before the Holocaust where well on the first step of the creation of Israel.
Again, see my comments on early Zionism and how it was multifaceted and open to cooperation with the Arabs. You seem to be unable to process this point.
And then they go on to say that things went sour when they realized the land would be flooded by Jews. It was this that incited hostility, not the fear of expulsion. Expulsion was a rallying cry to incite people.
And my evidence is the Balfour Declaration signed and dated 2nd of November 1917 for transmission of the Zionist Federation of (Great Britain and Ireland) to Palestine as the Jewish national home through the efforts of Nahum Sokolow and Chaim Weizmann (who became the first president of Israel)
You seem to me that u don't want to address it because from what I am learning it is unanswerable and completely contradicts your point of view.
The Balfour Declaration supports the existence of a "Jewish national home" and stresses that nothing shall be done to destabilize the Palestinian Arab population. A Jewish "national home" is not necessarily a state, and this is why you get the phenomenon of certain Zionist movements calling for a binational state or just a spiritual abode in the coastal plain. The Arabs themselves concede this in their official complaint to the UN.
Well if my boss at work advances my employment from a junior position to manager I won't exactly call it support it is more like a promotion.
Stated in The Balfour Declaration: ""His Majesty's government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their BEST ENDEAVORS to facilitate the achievement of this object.""
It was a transmission from one authority to the other.
True that it stresses that nothing shall be done to destabilize the Palestinian Arabs.The Arabs expressed disapproval in November 1918, but then after accepting the declaration and completing the transmission , the Zionists revolted against the Arabs and British. In 1935 Ze'ev Jabotinsky( Leader of the Irgun) expressed this ideology as "every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state"
A completely oversimplified view of history. The British intentionally left the word "state" out of the declaration and even rejected the proposal of referring to Palestine as "THE Jewish national home." The wording emphasized that Britain would only support the large-scale immigration of Jews so that they could go about their project of reconstituting their national identity.
Oversimplified?? Well I think it is better than concealing and fabricating parts of history.
Not only did you try to conceal The Balfour Declaration in your discussions, now you are calming it is an irrelevant factor to the situation by stating that The British even rejected it with no proof what so ever from you side even though historians have deduced it was the author of this tragedy.
As I've said, the institutions and motivation were present in Zionism to facilitate Arab cooperation (including Zionist parties that outwardly advocated a binational state). True, Jabotinsky (the far right of early Zionism) said that all Jews should be allowed to enter Palestine, but read some of his literature, and you'll find that his conception of the Jewish State was quite binational, as well. Yes, violence erupted, and it's quite convenient to ignore Arab participation, isn't it?
Strange I did not know you saw the Irgun terrorist attacks as retaliations, so tell us a bit more about the reason for the King David Hotel Bombing, and why the Village of Dir-Yassin was destroyed killing 107 villagers, including women and children, Or why Count Folke Bernadotte was murdered?
Dont get me wrong there were Palestinian violence too, but what you have missed over and over is the ethnic cleansing.
Yes, there was a back-and-forth during the civil war period. There was a cycle of violence. Terrorism was met with terrorism. Irgun operations began in 1936 when they concluded that Arab terror (such as the Hebron Massacre) could only be averted by responding with "active defense" (as they called it). They were terrorists, plain and simple. But the point to remember is that it was mutual.
I am also against the Arab massacres but the difference is that Zionist massacres where aimed at depopulating the region (i.e. leave or die) making way for new immigrants.
Based on the UNRWA definition, the number of Palestine refugees has grown from 711,000 in 1950 to over four million registered with the UN in 2002.And there are currently 1,318,000 are living in Israel.
Don't tell me you people Israel estimate that says that there were only half a million at the time.
Zionist offensive measures were largely retaliations for Arab offensive measures. As for operations during the war that resulted in transfers of population...AGAIN, see my two videos on refugees. You also demonstrate severely flawed logic. You said that the Zionists were planning to outnumber 6 million Arabs, and now you're claiming that now in 2009 (not the early 20th century) there are 4 million (not 6 million) Palestinian refugees + descendants. No further comment is necessary on this.
Or did over 60 Jews in Hebron not die in 1929? The Irgun and other far-right organizations came to the conclusion that fire would have to be fought with fire. That led to civil war and mutual campaigns of terrorism.
And again you said the problem was the Arab unwillingness to accept the prospect of becoming a minority in what they considered their land. Just think for minute before you baffle your Alice-In-Wonderland explanation of the events. How can immigrates outnumber a population of 6 million or more Palestinians. A "Jewish majority" was impossible to achieve based on Jewish immigration and natural growth.
First of all, I'm not sure how you can claim that I "concealed" the Balfour Declaration. Much of my video is about how Zionism existed before 1948. The Balfour Declaration was simply an expression of support for a movement that was multi-faceted and open to cooperation with the Arabs, who boycotted it. That's my argument. You're just not comprehending it.
Yes your videos are about how Zionism existed before 1948, I was just merely stating that lessons that you have discussed in your videos about Zionism history not once did u bring up the Balfour Declaration which is in the period before 1948. You said that it is a support for a movement that was multi-faceted and open to cooperation with the Arabs.
Please tell me where you got the figure of 6 million Arabs living in Palestine at that time. As for Deir Yassin, that was an atrocity committed by the Irgun in response to Arab shelling of road traffic between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, which killed many Jewish soldiers and kept the Jews of Jerusalem under a blockade. It was a military operation that became a massacre, which happens in war. Just look at the Kfar Etzion massacre carried out by the Aabs. That's the thing about war--back and forth.
What cooperation is that, ON BEHALF OF ONE PEOPLE PROMISED A SECOND PEOPLE A LAND WHICH BELONGED TO A THIRD PEOPLE? The British Empire is the author of this tragedy, not the Holocaust. Deir Yassin that was an atrocity committed by the Irgun but To destroy an entire villageKilled many Jewish soldiers, u consider 4 to be many compared to the 107 villagers. This is not something which happens in war. This is a war crime and there leader went on to be the prime minister.
The Balfour Declaration only expressed the intention of the British government to help the Zionists establish "A NATIONAL HOME." Not necessarily a state. Not even "THE NATIONAL HOME" (which is what the Zionists wanted it to say). Simply a national home. This could have meant many things, especially if the Arabs had decided to not boycott Zionism and the mandatory government. They resisted because they didn't want the land flooded by Jews, and the rest is history.
Oh, and again...flawed logic. When I was talking about soldiers being killed I was referring to soldiers traveling from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a route that was often bombarded by Arab snipers part of a blockade on Jerusalem that was keeping hundreds of Jerusalem Jews cut off and starving.
You even twisted the words that I have stated in my comments regarding the Palestine people, I have said that there are over four million (4.6 to be exact) registered with the UN in 2002 plus there are currently 1,318,000 living in Israel.
4.6+1.3 = 5.9 almost 6 million excluding the ones that are no longer refugees but are citizens of another country.
But if you have asked me how many there were in the world today Palestinian refugees + descendants = 10 million.
In the end, the problem was the Arab unwillingness to accept the prospect of becoming a minority in what they considered their land. Perhaps that's an acceptable grievance, but the childish, oversimplified view of Zionism as just marauding over helpless, passive, peaceful Arabs is absurd.
Zionists had concluded that forcible "population transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) was the only solution If you dont believe me ask your Ben-Gurion Israeli Prime Minister he stated in 1944:
"Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the [Palestinian] Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the [Palestinian] Arabs are removed [to these states] this will improve their condition and not the contrary."
That quote is not from Ben-Gurion. It's a quote attributed to Israeli Northern District Commissioner Israel Koenig, whose report on Arabs in the Galilee was completely rejected and condemned by the government. And though the report mentions altering the demographic balance in the Galilee to favor the Jews and enforcing tax collection and stuff like that, it never says anything about using land confiscation and terrorism.
I actually heard Ben-Gurion say that statement in a video and I cannot find it, true I dont have the source of it but here are more confirm quotes from Ben-Gurion that I think should verify whether the Zionist were innocent angels like u are portraying or not?
That quote appears on MIFTAH (probably where you got it) and is claimed to come from "Arabs in the Jewish State" by Ian Lustick. But if you read the book, you'll find it's never mentioned. And if you read the actual report by Koenig, you'll find again that it was never said. It's complete fabrication. Sorry.
During First Palestinian Intifada in 1938,he said :
"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves."
Israel's first prime minister Ben Guroian had a meeting on March 10, 1948 to finalize plans to ethnically cleanse Palestine that unfolded in the months that followed including "large-scale (deadly serious)intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning."And the war of 1948 has not even started yet,
The other thing when u said that the Arabs refused to cooperate with the Zionists (though I would call it surrender) but chose not to because they did not want to become outnumbered is also a falsehood.
The reasons why is because of the two main issues that u have missed out completely: the Expulsion and Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinian by military forces to make way for a new population, government and cities built on top of the ruins of Palestinian villages.
No, you're still missing my point. Expulsion was a tactic used in a war (often used in wars) fought between two sides, each of which recognized the necessity of committing unpleasantries. See my video "Refugees in the Arab-Israeli conflict." I also address the point in my responses to SLCThunk.
If the Zionists want to cooperate now it is not too late they need to acknowledge the basic essentials of negotiations and peaceful solution and that is Justice.
If theres NO justice there is NO peace, it is really that simple.
Fine in theory, but justice to many Palestinians is the dissolution of Israel, which Israel cannot accommodate. I'll be making a video about this in the near future.
You said that justice to many Palestinians is the dissolution of Israel but that isn't true.
Because there is an Arab Peace Plan that says : If Israel withdraws to its 1967 boarders in accordance to international law and allows a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, not only will Israel have peace and security but a normal relationship with all Arab countries (i.e. Embassies, Public and Economic Relations.. etc)
that the western world and it's liberal democracies have been dominating the international arena in the last 150-200 years (historically a rather short time, and you'll agree it doesn't seem to be lasting), does not mean they're right, or that their way of life is the best, or the best for the Jews!
our culture is not west, or east, or north, or south. it is unique and when the tide turns from east to west you may be hoping for utopic socialism.
The last part is where I think you missed the ball.
You must see that Israel and the US a distinctly different cases, Israel does not posses similar circumstances to those that allow America to be a Christian state, be it geographicaly, economically or culturally. Furthermore, keep in mind that there is no state with the responsibility of being the sole refuge and representation of the Christian people (mainly cause there are none), theres no obligation just circumstance.
You don't know your history, buddy. The holocaust led to the Israelis going to Palestine and trying to create their own land.The events led to each other and Israelis/Jewish people had no place to go and they decided to come to Palestine. All the Jewish people I met know that Israel was and is not there's and never existed until after 1948. One thing I dont understand is why Israelis are repeating the same thing that happened to them during the Holocaust, but even 10 times worse?
Samaher92 9 months ago
@Samaher92 you're full of shit and yet you claim that HE doesn't know his history! and not only that, you claim that the jews have done something that is "10 times worse"!? fuck is wrong you?? could you possibly be a lying muslim? sorry for being an ass, but I didn't like your response at all.
USAneedsaChange 9 months ago
@mbrown0315 U 4get that throughout the centuries there was a small % of Jews livning in the area.How else could the crusaders or Caliph U. ibn al-Khattab or others kill Jews in Jerusalem in the Midages.Even under Ottoman rule a cencus in 1875 showed a majority of Jews in Jerusalem.Also the Jewish Agency bought land in 80s of 19th C.Jews dried swamps&made the desert grow,where nobody lived in earlier years(Twain).If the Arabs hadn't rejected of living together there wouldn't have been a Nakba.
INdiverCT 10 months ago
The Ultimate Justification of Israel isn't the Holocaust. IT is the Torah (Bible) where G-D says that the land belongs to the Jewish nation. Ultimately the whole world belongs to G-D. G-D created the world and He is in charge of it. + Arabs made war and LOST, where even according to the "international" laws, they forfeit their right to rule over it.
extazy17 1 year ago
very good analysis
TheTollundWoman 1 year ago
I am sorry your basic assumptions are wrong for example: Nakba, "palestinian people" both never existed ...i think there is much work to do before you deal with these questions...
gingerXLL 1 year ago
@gingerXLL Palestinian people existed before 1948, and yes they were uprooted from their homes.
KDidesxo 1 year ago
@gingerXLL Palestinian people existed and still exist and the Nakba did happen. Stop living in denial and hiding from the reality. Palestinians lived in "Israel" first and their land was taken from them unrightfully by the Israelis. Sorry to tell you the truth, but you have to know that there is no Israel and Palestine will be free soon.
Samaher92 9 months ago
@Samaher92 they bought land before 1948. When they were promised to be invaded in 1947 they forced some out. After 1948 arab countries forced out the same number of jews. Many of the arabs who lived in palestine at this time had only lived there maybe 50 years(as long as many of the jews had).
USAneedsaChange 9 months ago
Great video
ZogSoldier 1 year ago
Antisemitism was a catalyst of modern Zionism, a driving force for immigrants mainly from Russia, and what drove Hertzel to abandon mass conversions, etc. The Zionist movement would have started with or without Hertzel. Modern Zionism itself should be seen as a part of a much greater movement in western culture rooted in early modernity (17-18th century), in the eradication of theocracies\church kings and the creation of Nationalism (blood and land).
Joniversity 1 year ago
Let's start by syaing Hebrews basically means Israelite, or in an archeological term might mean proto-Israelite (and more). Israelite, who are referred to today as Jews since their integration with Judah in the 8th-7th century BCE, are one of the same - they are a NATION. Judaism is not a religion per-se. it's an integral and indistinguishable part of a national identity. Wanting the Jewish Nation to have a Jewish state isn't comparable at-all to Americans having a Christian state.
Joniversity 1 year ago
Judaism is a religion, but for many centuries it was practiced more or less exclusively by geographically disparate communities who, in many but not all cases, shared a genetic echo. By the 20th century, Judaism was less of a uniting factor. The fact is that there wasn't all that much in common between the atheist, socialist Zionists of Poland and the pious Jews of Yemen, except that they cherished certain common rituals (in different contexts) and shared a vague ethnic badge.
mbrown0315 1 year ago
With increasing assimilation and the rise of progressive Judaism, Jewishness is becoming more and more of a subjective construct, ethnically and religiously. Conservative converts are welcomes as Jews by Conservative and Reform and Reconstructionist Jews but shunned by the Orthodox spectrum. The son of a Jewish father and a mother who converted Reform is recognized by certain people as a Jew, not by others.
mbrown0315 1 year ago
@mbrown0315 Real Judaism is "Orthodox". All the other movements are the breakaways from it. If we look at places besides Germany and U.S.A. (now) where the other movements started we see that Jews of all places are almost all "Orthodox". Yemen, Uzbek, Israel, Iraq Poland- All Jews were historically Orthodox. Reform and other such movements only started not that long ago in Germany and spread like a cancer.not all Jews who are reform,are bad, but the movement is wrong from a legal point of view.
extazy17 1 year ago
When brought to Israel, this leads to something I call state schizophrenia, in which various institutional "voices" make competing claims about a single person's Jewishness. The worldwide Jewish tribe is breaking up, the Jewish religion is becoming less and less the domain of the rabbis alone. It's open to interpretation. It's voluntary. Halacha no longer guides life in the shtetls, ברוד השם
mbrown0315 1 year ago
But there are certain Judaic constants in all these different expressions of Jewishness, and I think these are the things that most secular and traditional (not orthodox) people refer to when they express a desire for a Jewish state: Hebrew as the national language, a national calendar that accommodates the traditional Jewish life cycle, Jewish iconography, etc.
mbrown0315 1 year ago
These things constitute a beautiful Judeo-Hebraic culture more or less emancipated from dogma and an increasingly anachronistic preoccupation with notions of Jew-positive blood.
mbrown0315 1 year ago
@mbrown0315 I hate the charter limit here. so i'll make it brief and we'll go personal with it. Basically, i think you are letting giving the Pharisaic interpretation of Judaism to interfere with understating the roots of ancient Judaism, and the reasons it was brought forth in the first place (to create a NATION!! under one king), the basic argument goes on from there. Hebrews anyway are not a good name to describe Israelites.
Joniversity 1 year ago
@mbrown0315 In Israel the problem goes far deeper. As orthodox rabbinical Judaism hijacked religious authority in Israel, for many historical reasons that have to do with the old Yeshuv, and psychological factors of secular people. But lets not go into DOSSIM in Israel, I'm getting edgy already... In any-case i think you're missing some very important points about Judaism and the Jewish people both ancient and modern, some of it because you buy into modern Orthodox Jewish perception of Judaism.
Joniversity 1 year ago
@mbrown0315 Ok, i'm going to stuff myself up with bread.
Joniversity 1 year ago
I hate when people say the holocaust justifies the creation of Israel.
WHAT THE F*** does the holocaust have to do with palestinians? Answer: Zero.
The English who had control over palestine at the time decided to throw the jews there because, afterall, arabs are nothing but a bunch of sand niggers.. Thats what really happened, jews stole the land and i understand they were put there but ..
I'll be surprised if Israel isn't nuked, honestly.
DaK1LL 2 years ago
f... you and the arabs
thegodofwar2009 2 years ago
you know whats a better question?
Did the establishment of the state of Israel justify the expulsion and forced migration of some 1000000 jews from arab lands?
DmitriySPKS 2 years ago
In Mr. Churchill wonderful words: when asked Zionism cannot occupy Palestine because Palestinians were already living there. He Said I do not agree that the dog (i.e. Palestinian) in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time.
That was the mentality of the establishment of the Zionist State, that the people there were considered dogs, sub-human just like the Africans,the Asian,Native Americans that should be concerned by white Europeans.
Jason10498 2 years ago
You totally ignored Balfour Declaration of 1917 that happened almost 30 years before the Holocaust.
The Zionists were not claiming the land for the holocaust or any biblical title; in fact they were against religion and Judaism.
They were doing what white Europeans who were not Jewish doing at the time, founding a colonial settlement.
The Palestinians had only one problem and it was not because of the mufti, it was because they were ARABS a supposedly inferior race.
Jason10498 2 years ago
Did you watch my recent responses to SLCThunk (as I recommended)? In those videos, as in this video, I detail how early Zionism was not nearly as political as later Zionism. My argument in those videos was and remains that the Arabs had plenty of opportunities to cooperate with the Zionists but chose not to because they did not want to become outnumbered in what they considered their land. I provide real evidence, not obscure quotes from Churchill.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
I did watch the videos but the evidence that you have provided I won't really call it evidence, consisting of semi-truths and half-truths of Zionist propaganda (u may not mean it).But the situation is uglier than you think. There are so many point I like to raise but lets first focus on the comment u have given and the above video.u displayed that it was because of the holocaust the State of Israel was establishment, this is a falsehood and my evidence is the Balfour Declaration of the Year 1917
Jason10498 2 years ago
You're being willfully ignorant. I make the claim in this video that Zionism was alive and well before the rise of Nazi persecution but was multifaceted in political outlook. The Jewish State paradigm arose in reaction to the rise of Nazi persecution. If you want more evidence, I can provide it. Look at the official cable message sent by the Arab countries to the UN before they launched the 1948 war. They say explicitly that Zionism started as a non-political movement.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Willfully ignorant??? Well thats a first, I have been called a liar not this.
I wasnt talking about when Zionism has initiated, I clearly mentioned and pointed out that it was not Nazi persecution that The Jewish State paradigm arose in reaction to it. The holocaust may have escalated Jewish immigration from Europe to Palestine but it wasn't the cause of Creation of Israel.
The Zionist almost 30 years ago before the Holocaust where well on the first step of the creation of Israel.
Jason10498 2 years ago
Again, see my comments on early Zionism and how it was multifaceted and open to cooperation with the Arabs. You seem to be unable to process this point.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
And then they go on to say that things went sour when they realized the land would be flooded by Jews. It was this that incited hostility, not the fear of expulsion. Expulsion was a rallying cry to incite people.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
And my evidence is the Balfour Declaration signed and dated 2nd of November 1917 for transmission of the Zionist Federation of (Great Britain and Ireland) to Palestine as the Jewish national home through the efforts of Nahum Sokolow and Chaim Weizmann (who became the first president of Israel)
You seem to me that u don't want to address it because from what I am learning it is unanswerable and completely contradicts your point of view.
Jason10498 2 years ago
The Balfour Declaration supports the existence of a "Jewish national home" and stresses that nothing shall be done to destabilize the Palestinian Arab population. A Jewish "national home" is not necessarily a state, and this is why you get the phenomenon of certain Zionist movements calling for a binational state or just a spiritual abode in the coastal plain. The Arabs themselves concede this in their official complaint to the UN.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Balfour declaration is a support??
Well if my boss at work advances my employment from a junior position to manager I won't exactly call it support it is more like a promotion.
Stated in The Balfour Declaration: ""His Majesty's government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their BEST ENDEAVORS to facilitate the achievement of this object.""
It was a transmission from one authority to the other.
Jason10498 2 years ago
True that it stresses that nothing shall be done to destabilize the Palestinian Arabs.The Arabs expressed disapproval in November 1918, but then after accepting the declaration and completing the transmission , the Zionists revolted against the Arabs and British. In 1935 Ze'ev Jabotinsky( Leader of the Irgun) expressed this ideology as "every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state"
Jason10498 2 years ago
A completely oversimplified view of history. The British intentionally left the word "state" out of the declaration and even rejected the proposal of referring to Palestine as "THE Jewish national home." The wording emphasized that Britain would only support the large-scale immigration of Jews so that they could go about their project of reconstituting their national identity.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Oversimplified?? Well I think it is better than concealing and fabricating parts of history.
Not only did you try to conceal The Balfour Declaration in your discussions, now you are calming it is an irrelevant factor to the situation by stating that The British even rejected it with no proof what so ever from you side even though historians have deduced it was the author of this tragedy.
Jason10498 2 years ago
As I've said, the institutions and motivation were present in Zionism to facilitate Arab cooperation (including Zionist parties that outwardly advocated a binational state). True, Jabotinsky (the far right of early Zionism) said that all Jews should be allowed to enter Palestine, but read some of his literature, and you'll find that his conception of the Jewish State was quite binational, as well. Yes, violence erupted, and it's quite convenient to ignore Arab participation, isn't it?
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Strange I did not know you saw the Irgun terrorist attacks as retaliations, so tell us a bit more about the reason for the King David Hotel Bombing, and why the Village of Dir-Yassin was destroyed killing 107 villagers, including women and children, Or why Count Folke Bernadotte was murdered?
Dont get me wrong there were Palestinian violence too, but what you have missed over and over is the ethnic cleansing.
Jason10498 2 years ago
Yes, there was a back-and-forth during the civil war period. There was a cycle of violence. Terrorism was met with terrorism. Irgun operations began in 1936 when they concluded that Arab terror (such as the Hebron Massacre) could only be averted by responding with "active defense" (as they called it). They were terrorists, plain and simple. But the point to remember is that it was mutual.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
I am also against the Arab massacres but the difference is that Zionist massacres where aimed at depopulating the region (i.e. leave or die) making way for new immigrants.
Based on the UNRWA definition, the number of Palestine refugees has grown from 711,000 in 1950 to over four million registered with the UN in 2002.And there are currently 1,318,000 are living in Israel.
Don't tell me you people Israel estimate that says that there were only half a million at the time.
Jason10498 2 years ago
Zionist offensive measures were largely retaliations for Arab offensive measures. As for operations during the war that resulted in transfers of population...AGAIN, see my two videos on refugees. You also demonstrate severely flawed logic. You said that the Zionists were planning to outnumber 6 million Arabs, and now you're claiming that now in 2009 (not the early 20th century) there are 4 million (not 6 million) Palestinian refugees + descendants. No further comment is necessary on this.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
I dont know whether to cry or laugh, you seem to have you Zionist propagandist hand book ready at all time.
Zionist offensive measures were largely retaliations for Arab offensive measures,
what retaliation gave the King David Hotel Bombing?
Count Bernadotte Murder? The two British sergeants that wore hung in the olive groves outside Tel Aviv?
Jason10498 2 years ago
Or did over 60 Jews in Hebron not die in 1929? The Irgun and other far-right organizations came to the conclusion that fire would have to be fought with fire. That led to civil war and mutual campaigns of terrorism.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
And again you said the problem was the Arab unwillingness to accept the prospect of becoming a minority in what they considered their land. Just think for minute before you baffle your Alice-In-Wonderland explanation of the events. How can immigrates outnumber a population of 6 million or more Palestinians. A "Jewish majority" was impossible to achieve based on Jewish immigration and natural growth.
Jason10498 2 years ago
This is getting old...
First of all, I'm not sure how you can claim that I "concealed" the Balfour Declaration. Much of my video is about how Zionism existed before 1948. The Balfour Declaration was simply an expression of support for a movement that was multi-faceted and open to cooperation with the Arabs, who boycotted it. That's my argument. You're just not comprehending it.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
It is getting really old..
Yes your videos are about how Zionism existed before 1948, I was just merely stating that lessons that you have discussed in your videos about Zionism history not once did u bring up the Balfour Declaration which is in the period before 1948. You said that it is a support for a movement that was multi-faceted and open to cooperation with the Arabs.
Jason10498 2 years ago
Please tell me where you got the figure of 6 million Arabs living in Palestine at that time. As for Deir Yassin, that was an atrocity committed by the Irgun in response to Arab shelling of road traffic between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, which killed many Jewish soldiers and kept the Jews of Jerusalem under a blockade. It was a military operation that became a massacre, which happens in war. Just look at the Kfar Etzion massacre carried out by the Aabs. That's the thing about war--back and forth.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
What cooperation is that, ON BEHALF OF ONE PEOPLE PROMISED A SECOND PEOPLE A LAND WHICH BELONGED TO A THIRD PEOPLE? The British Empire is the author of this tragedy, not the Holocaust. Deir Yassin that was an atrocity committed by the Irgun but To destroy an entire villageKilled many Jewish soldiers, u consider 4 to be many compared to the 107 villagers. This is not something which happens in war. This is a war crime and there leader went on to be the prime minister.
Jason10498 2 years ago
The Balfour Declaration only expressed the intention of the British government to help the Zionists establish "A NATIONAL HOME." Not necessarily a state. Not even "THE NATIONAL HOME" (which is what the Zionists wanted it to say). Simply a national home. This could have meant many things, especially if the Arabs had decided to not boycott Zionism and the mandatory government. They resisted because they didn't want the land flooded by Jews, and the rest is history.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Oh, and again...flawed logic. When I was talking about soldiers being killed I was referring to soldiers traveling from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a route that was often bombarded by Arab snipers part of a blockade on Jerusalem that was keeping hundreds of Jerusalem Jews cut off and starving.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
You even twisted the words that I have stated in my comments regarding the Palestine people, I have said that there are over four million (4.6 to be exact) registered with the UN in 2002 plus there are currently 1,318,000 living in Israel.
4.6+1.3 = 5.9 almost 6 million excluding the ones that are no longer refugees but are citizens of another country.
But if you have asked me how many there were in the world today Palestinian refugees + descendants = 10 million.
Jason10498 2 years ago
In the end, the problem was the Arab unwillingness to accept the prospect of becoming a minority in what they considered their land. Perhaps that's an acceptable grievance, but the childish, oversimplified view of Zionism as just marauding over helpless, passive, peaceful Arabs is absurd.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Zionists had concluded that forcible "population transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) was the only solution If you dont believe me ask your Ben-Gurion Israeli Prime Minister he stated in 1944:
"Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the [Palestinian] Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the [Palestinian] Arabs are removed [to these states] this will improve their condition and not the contrary."
Jason10498 2 years ago
As for transfer...again, see my videos on Arab refugees.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
I did see your videos on Arab refugees, but please next time include David Ben-Gurion quotes like when he said :
We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.
Jason10498 2 years ago
That quote is not from Ben-Gurion. It's a quote attributed to Israeli Northern District Commissioner Israel Koenig, whose report on Arabs in the Galilee was completely rejected and condemned by the government. And though the report mentions altering the demographic balance in the Galilee to favor the Jews and enforcing tax collection and stuff like that, it never says anything about using land confiscation and terrorism.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
I actually heard Ben-Gurion say that statement in a video and I cannot find it, true I dont have the source of it but here are more confirm quotes from Ben-Gurion that I think should verify whether the Zionist were innocent angels like u are portraying or not?
Jason10498 2 years ago
That quote appears on MIFTAH (probably where you got it) and is claimed to come from "Arabs in the Jewish State" by Ian Lustick. But if you read the book, you'll find it's never mentioned. And if you read the actual report by Koenig, you'll find again that it was never said. It's complete fabrication. Sorry.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
During First Palestinian Intifada in 1938,he said :
"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves."
(Righteous Victims, page 652)
Jason10498 2 years ago
See my response in your YouTube inbox. I can't keep dealing with these character limits.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
where is this response I cant find it ?
Jason10498 2 years ago
Just sent it.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Quick question how many of Palestinian population do u think were there before 1948 ??
Jason10498 2 years ago
Israel's first prime minister Ben Guroian had a meeting on March 10, 1948 to finalize plans to ethnically cleanse Palestine that unfolded in the months that followed including "large-scale (deadly serious)intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning."And the war of 1948 has not even started yet,
Jason10498 2 years ago
Watch my videos on Refugees in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
The other thing when u said that the Arabs refused to cooperate with the Zionists (though I would call it surrender) but chose not to because they did not want to become outnumbered is also a falsehood.
The reasons why is because of the two main issues that u have missed out completely: the Expulsion and Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinian by military forces to make way for a new population, government and cities built on top of the ruins of Palestinian villages.
Jason10498 2 years ago
No, you're still missing my point. Expulsion was a tactic used in a war (often used in wars) fought between two sides, each of which recognized the necessity of committing unpleasantries. See my video "Refugees in the Arab-Israeli conflict." I also address the point in my responses to SLCThunk.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
If the Zionists want to cooperate now it is not too late they need to acknowledge the basic essentials of negotiations and peaceful solution and that is Justice.
If theres NO justice there is NO peace, it is really that simple.
Jason10498 2 years ago
Fine in theory, but justice to many Palestinians is the dissolution of Israel, which Israel cannot accommodate. I'll be making a video about this in the near future.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
You said that justice to many Palestinians is the dissolution of Israel but that isn't true.
Because there is an Arab Peace Plan that says : If Israel withdraws to its 1967 boarders in accordance to international law and allows a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, not only will Israel have peace and security but a normal relationship with all Arab countries (i.e. Embassies, Public and Economic Relations.. etc)
Jason10498 2 years ago
Comment removed
Jason10498 2 years ago
very informative, hopefully you will get as many views as possible.
subbed.
IDFArmor 2 years ago
And most importantly:
BEWARE OF HELLENISM!
that the western world and it's liberal democracies have been dominating the international arena in the last 150-200 years (historically a rather short time, and you'll agree it doesn't seem to be lasting), does not mean they're right, or that their way of life is the best, or the best for the Jews!
our culture is not west, or east, or north, or south. it is unique and when the tide turns from east to west you may be hoping for utopic socialism.
Dgrainboy 2 years ago
*I meant west to east.
Dgrainboy 2 years ago
Very nice,
The last part is where I think you missed the ball.
You must see that Israel and the US a distinctly different cases, Israel does not posses similar circumstances to those that allow America to be a Christian state, be it geographicaly, economically or culturally. Furthermore, keep in mind that there is no state with the responsibility of being the sole refuge and representation of the Christian people (mainly cause there are none), theres no obligation just circumstance.
Dgrainboy 2 years ago