I definetly disagree. Palestinians were there before 47,the land was handed to the Jews from the hands of the Palestinians after that. As far as violence ,it would be great if there was none. But it is no better when Israel carelessly bombs whatever they want with no regard,and the media paints it favorably and leaves out the civilian casualties. That part is masked,and the Palestinian attacks on Israel highlighted. Neither are right,but most people are brainwashed into thinking that one side is completely justified.
It was not a fair and balanced deal for Palestinians. The Mandate was divided into a Jewish state, an Arab state on which the Palestinians were to be settled and an Arab state, Jordan, which was handed to a Hashemite monarchy not to the Palestinians. The 1948 war ended in Jordan annexing the West Bank from the Palestinians, a move that Israel supported in the armistice, The Palestinian state was gone before it had ever been birthed and Palestinians had nothing to say in the matter. The deal in the mid 90's was undermined by the Israeli settler movement in stages, with the massacre at Hebron in late 1994 and the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 the key points in which the agreement became unstable. By 2000 both sides were back at Camp David trying to pick something out of the wreckage of the deal but there was essentially nothing there to salvage by that point and the 2nd Intifada soon followed.
The land was not "handed" to the Jews. Jews immigrated into Palestine, mostly legally, in enormous numbers in the 1930s. By 1936, 1/3 of the population in Palestine was Jewish. All the while, Palestine was going through an economic crisis and Jews and Jewish National Funds were buying up land. To this point, nothing was "given" to the Jews. The Jews had simply entered the country en masse and bought up a bunch of land. At this point, hostilities began in earnest. The Arab Revolt began. Jews continued to immigrate into Palestine and buy valuable farmland while British troops held a tenuous peace between Jews and Arabs. It became clear, based on the level of violence and segregation, that the Jewish and Palestinian populations could not coexist in a viable nation once Britain ended their occupation. In 1947, the UN drew partition borders that would allow for the British occupied land to be separated into two viable states, built mostly on the foundation of territories already controlled predominantly by Jews (for Israel) and Palestinians (for Palestine). In other words, a solution based on who already owned the land -- NOT a "handout". This was to go into effect immediately upon British withdrawal. The British withdrew, and the Arab world immediately descended upon the newly-formed state of Israel in defiance of the UN's partition. And they lost. They have been alternatively fighting and seeking international aid to reclaim the land ever since, losing even more land in the process. That is the SparkNotes version of an incredibly intricate and complex conflict.
So you are saying that the land bought up by the Jews was Bankrolled,like the Rothschilds in England? As far as the rest of it,i'm sure there are plenty involved that would say it did not quite happen like that. But if it fits what you want to have happened...paste that version. Are you going to go on record saying that Palestinians were not forced out by both Jewish terrorism and British military?
Um, I'm saying exactly what I typed. If you want to draw historical parallels, knock yourself out. Everything I posted was fact, with little to no room for interpretation. You can add your footnotes where you like, but they don't change the substance of what occurred.
If you need a SparkNote of the SparkNote, here: There was no Palestinian sovereignty. They lived under British Mandate, not self rule. Because of this, they couldn't stop Jews from immigrating in and legally buying land. Eventually, there were so many Jews and they owned so much land that there obviously wasn't a solitary Arab nation in Palestine anymore -- a two-state solution was necessary. The UN tried to draw fair lines based on who owned what, but the Palestinians didn't like that and tried to take back the Jewish land via the 1948 war. They lost, their partition land got swallowed up, and the offers they've gotten for a Palestinian state have gotten progressively worse ever since, as Israel becomes more and more entrenched. After 65 years, you'd think they'd realize there's no turning back the clock and they may as well take the best deal they can, while they can. But apparently they'd rather dig in and end up squabbling over a falafel hut in Gaza in 2075.
The irony of the current situation is that the method that was most effective in securing an Israeli state populated largely by Jews was the terror that certain elements used to drive out the British and then ethnically cleanse large tracts of Arab land in what is now israel.
You'll have to be more specific. "That time" is a bit general. But Jewish terror attacks began in earnest in 1937, with Irgun, as a response to Arab terror attacks against Jewish communities, schools, buses, and farms during the Arab Revolt, which began in 1936 and ended in 1939 and resulted in as many civilian deaths as all pre-1948 Irgun terrorist attacks against Palestinians combined. Jewish terrorist attacks mostly ceased in 1939 with the end of the Arab Revolt and began again in 1944. The majority of the second wave of attacks came against British, rather than Palestinian, targets. I'll presume your intent is to argue that Jews somehow terrorized Palestinians off their land, but that's patently absurd. In the years preceding Jewish statehood, there were more Jewish casualties of terrorism than Palestinians, and Palestinian aggression preceded Jewish aggression. In truth, the degree of terrorism was minor by modern standards, on both sides. There were more deaths from terrorism on September 11th than in the entire decade preceding Israeli statehood, from both Jews and Palestinians combined. The most significant effect of Israeli/Palestinian terrorism in the Mandate era was convincing the British that maintaining their occupation was more trouble than it was worth. Pre-1948, the major shifts in demographics and property ownership were almost exclusively the result of immigration and economics, not violence or intimidation. That changed in 1948. Once Israel won the war, they did expel many Palestinians, and refused re-entry to even more that had fled prior to the war. But that's a different discussion entirely, and one that has more to do with the post-war armistice and less to do with the pre-war conditions that created an Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the first place.
Bombing of the King David Hotel, Jerusalem, 1946. Deir Yassin Massacre, 1948. Many reprisal killings and assassinations from the mid-1930's onwards. The Irgun became the epitome of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." Nothing that the PLO did was not done or contemplated by the Irgun at various points until the airplane hijackings in the mid to late 60's. You can make a strong argument that desperate men do desperate things and that the Irgun were never as desperate as the PLO had become by the late 60's. This is not meant to excuse the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah or any of the Arab terrorist groups, just meant to point out that Israel also had some very shady actors in the mix early on and those actors only faded when statehood was secured and defended twice. Those same actors burst back on the scene politically as "legitimate" politicians in the 70's. It's hard not to think that Yasser Arafat envisioned a day when he would be a legitimate President of a Palestinian state despite the atrocities on his watch and the blood on his hands. He had an example sitting right in front of him in Menachim Begin.
My point on the ethnic cleansing was that there was a widespread intimidation campaign to get Arabs to move out of villages that lay between prominent Jewish settlements and kibbutzes. Deir Yassin was one of the few times when the intimidation failed and the people refused to move which then precipitated the massacre. There's a longheld view that the holding of keys to houses that may no longer even exist in places like Jerusalem is a major force in holding together the shared sense of victimization that the Palestinians feel at this point. That may be true but it is the tens of thousands of Arabs that were driven from their homes long before the people in big cities that are the real glue there. Most of the people who left Jerusalem did so voluntarily because they didn't want to live under an Israeli government. The people in the villages weren't given that choice. They were told to get out or else and most of them did.
Agree with most of this, too, although I sense we may disagree on the extent of it. For instance, I don't believe Deir Yassin was one of the only times Palestinians refused to relocate. I think it was an isolated incident of unmitigated slaughter, one that was roundly criticized by everyone -- including almost every Jewish faction in Israel. I think the notion of "get out or Deir Yassan" may have been a genuine fear of Palestinians at the time, but it was not intended as such. I also don't think there was a uniform policy of intimidation or relocation. These settlements were all different. Some were on land that had been on Israel's side of the partition. Some were still violently resisting Israeli rule. Some were evacuated to escape Israeli rule. And some were willingly sold off, in hopes of reclaiming the land after the war. Yes, many were absolutely intimidated or forced off their land. But I wouldn't paint in too broad strokes with that. Plenty left willingly or after violently resisting. And many stayed, as well.
The MLB guy absolutely 100% needs to be fired. Nothing but pure hate and bigotry in that tweet. An apology? Shit Paula Dean has been raked over hot coals for something she said when I was 6 years old and I'm in my mid 30's now. (not that it's okay to say that)This guy absolutely showed he is a racist bigot asshole and MLB needs to send him packing.
Palestinian Jets rookie fires back at web critics: ‘I’m no anti-Semite’ By BART HUBBUCH Last Updated: 2:55 AM, July 13, 2013 Posted: 2:08 AM, July 13, 2013 Embattled Jets rookie Oday Aboushi lashed back yesterday at accusations he is a fundamentalist Muslim who associates with radicals opposed to Israel, labeling the charges “lies and smears.” In an exclusive interview with The Post, the fifth-round pick — a Brooklyn native who is believed to be the first Palestinian-American ever drafted by an NFL team — adamantly denied charges leveled by a conservative website this week that Aboushi is anti-Semitic and uses social media to endorse what they consider Palestinian terrorist groups. “My family’s been just as shocked by the lies and smears as I’ve been,” Aboushi said in a telephone interview. “I don’t think I’m radical at all. I have never done any radical behavior. For the writer to come out and claim that just builds lies on top of the lies.” Aboushi, an offensive lineman from Virginia, has been besieged by angry tweets and messages since an article published Tuesday by the website Frontpagemag.com labeled him “a fundamentalist Muslim with radical associations and a heritage that pushes him towards a destructive world of violence and hate.” The report also called for the Jets — whose fanbase includes such a large Jewish contingent that the team asked the NFL to reschedule its 2009 home opener to avoid conflict with Rosh Hashana — to immediately release Aboushi because of his views.”¨ Aboushi told The Post his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are anything but radical. “My feelings are very fair — I wish both sides would come to a peaceful agreement and both live in peace,” Aboushi said. “I want to see them live together in harmony and enjoy the land instead of focusing on conflict with each other.” Asked if he considers himself anti-Semitic, Aboushi scoffed. “I have plenty of friends who are Jewish,” he told The Post. “Some of my best friends are Jewish. I have teammates who are Jewish, and I was brought up with Jewish kids. I never had any problem with them, and I respect them just as much as they respect me. “Everybody has a right to believe what they want to believe, and everybody has a right to say what they want to say. At the end of the day, I don’t have any disrespect or hateful things to say against the Jewish community, and I’m definitely not anti-Semitic.” The Jets said they have given no thought to cutting Aboushi because of the accusations. The club also released a statement yesterday supporting — within bounds — their players’ right to free speech. “The New York Jets strongly believe in diversity, inclusion and tolerance of others,” a team spokesman said. “We also encourage all of our employees to use good judgment when exercising their rights to freedom of expression and speech to be certain that they are constructive and respectful.” The Anti-Defamation League also weighed in with support for Aboushi, releasing a statement yesterday saying the allegations “appear to be exaggerated for the express purpose of smearing” him. “Absolutely nothing in the public record suggests Aboushi is anything other than a young American athlete who takes pride in his Palestinian heritage,” the ADL said. “Being pro-Palestinian does not mean you’re an anti-Semite or an extremist. The record simply does not show that Aboushi has crossed that line.” Aboushi said he first learned of the article shortly after it was published when he started getting angry messages on Twitter and Facebook from Jewish Jets fans. “I haven’t read the article, and I plan to keep it that way,” Aboushi said. “It was shocking, though. I didn’t expect to hear anything like that about myself.” The FrontPage Magazine article accused Aboushi of using social media sites to endorse U.S. mosques and Muslim organizations it claims are linked to overseas terrorism and committed to the destruction of Israel. “None of [that] is on my Facebook page, so that just shows the lies on top of lies,” Aboushi told The Post. “I do pray in a mosque, but at the end of the day, I don’t support any terrorism. I think terrorism is wrong in all cases.” Yahoo! Sports picked up on the article, with writer Adam Waksman penning a subsequent column that accused Aboushi of “anti-Semitic activism” and wondered if he should be banned from the league. Waksman’s column has since been deleted. Aboushi said he was even more dismayed when a newly hired social-media editor for Major League Baseball compared him Thursday on Twitter to accused NFL murderer Aaron Hernandez. “The @nyjets are a disgrace of an organization. The Patriots have Aaron Hernandez, the Jets have Oday Aboushi,” wrote MLB.com new media coordinator Jonathan Mael, who has since deleted his Twitter account. Aboushi was shaken up by the Hernandez comparison. “To be linked to something like that was just as shocking as the original article,” Aboushi said of Mael’s tweet. “People have freedom of speech, and this is America, so he’s allowed to do so. But it’s still shocking.” At the same time, Aboushi admits accusations aren’t entirely out of left field as a prominent Arab-American playing for a New York team in a post-9/11 world. “Being one of the first Arab-Americans in the NFL is definitely going to take people back, so [accusations] come with the position,” he told The Post. “I understand it comes with the territory. The only thing [the Jets] care about is that I help them win football games, and that’s the only thing I care about, as well.” Aboushi said the backing of his family, friends and the Jets have helped him get through the controversy. “The support has been great, and it hasn’t just been my family or the Arab community,” Aboushi said. “I’ve had people from the Jewish community and college friends and high school friends who’ve told me, ‘We know the kind of guy you are, so don’t let this bother you.’ ’’ Nor does Aboushi plan to stifle himself because of the accusations if he feels there is an issue involving Palestinians that’s worthy of public comment. “I’m not ashamed of who I am,” Aboushi said. “I’m a proud Arab-American. There’s a time and place for everything, and if I feel like there’s something to be said, then I’ll say it.” Gratuitous Linky
^^ See how the media twats operate? ^^ Strike up all this hoopla to drum up the natives and then when they are to be held accountable...DELETE. I have said this time & time & time & time again. All they do is copy from one another without a fuking ounce of investigation and proof. Fuck these muthers... These no brain Mofos need to be held accountable for what they write.. Yeah, It's freedom of the press and freedom of speech but once you smear someones name as they did, you don't get to conveniently delete it and walk away... Yeah, I'm pissed.
I have plenty of issues with the Israeli government position. I don't see how me having a clean brain and you have a dirty one has anything to do with having a different view on this. Arguing brainwashed seems to me a gutless position. Look around the ME today. Sectarian violence can only be described as a slaughter. 100,000 dead in Syria, how many in Iraq, Lebanon. How many have been killed in North Africa. Israel has a zero tolerance for attacks on civilians because it has worked. Does that mean they should be settling land that should be put aside for Palestinians, or annexing Jerusalem? Of course not. However if I had to protect the population I would have to take into consideration the arms shipments, the use of chemical weapons by the same government that back the uprising. The absolute failure of any of their neighboring governments to operate in a way that would make any Israeli believe that they can have a peaceful coexistence with their neighbors. Look who runs the neighborhood. Again I want peace. I want a 2 state solution. I can separate security from the theft of land. I support security, not the settlements. The lack of outrage at real civilian causalities by the dictators that have supported the Palestinians failure to make peace is never outrageous. The bombs going off on a regular basis all over the ME, Africa, Afghanistan not outrageous. How many people have we killed in retaliation for 9/11? If I thought it would stop I could live with it.
anybody else glad the jets released the statement sticking by aboushi and his right to free speech (even though his published views on the issue are about as noncontroversial as it gets...) proud of the jets on this one
