For decades, the international community has assumed that historic Palestine must be divided between Jews and Palestinians. Yet no satisfactory division of the land has been reached. Israel has aggravated the problem by settling roughly 500,000 Jews in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, eliminating the land base for a viable Palestinian state.
A de facto one-state reality has emerged, with Israel effectively ruling virtually all of the former Palestine. Yet only Jews enjoy full rights in this functionally unitary political system. In contrast, Palestinian citizens of Israel endure more than 35 laws that explicitly privilege Jews as well as policies that deliberately marginalize them. West Bank Palestinians cannot drive on roads built for Israeli settlers, while Palestinians in Gaza watch as their children's intellectual and physical growth are stunted by an Israeli
siege that has limited educational opportunities and deepened poverty to acute levels.
Clearly, Palestinians and Israeli Jews will continue to live together. The question is: under what terms? Palestinians will no more accept permanent subordination than would any other people.
The answer is for Israelis and Palestinians to formalize their de facto one-state reality but on principles of equal rights rather than ...
A de facto one-state reality has emerged, with Israel effectively ruling virtually all of the former Palestine. Yet only Jews enjoy full rights in this functionally unitary political system. In contrast, Palestinian citizens of Israel endure more than 35 laws that explicitly privilege Jews as well as policies that deliberately marginalize them. West Bank Palestinians cannot drive on roads built for Israeli settlers, while Palestinians in Gaza watch as their children's intellectual and physical growth are stunted by an Israeli
siege that has limited educational opportunities and deepened poverty to acute levels.
Clearly, Palestinians and Israeli Jews will continue to live together. The question is: under what terms? Palestinians will no more accept permanent subordination than would any other people.
The answer is for Israelis and Palestinians to formalize their de facto one-state reality but on principles of equal rights rather than ...
For decades, the international community has assumed that historic Palestine must be divided between Jews and Palestinians. Yet no satisfactory division of the land has been reached. Israel has aggravated the problem by settling roughly 500,000 Jews in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, eliminating the land base for a viable Palestinian state.
A de facto one-state reality has emerged, with Israel effectively ruling virtually all of the former Palestine. Yet only Jews enjoy full rights in this functionally unitary political system. In contrast, Palestinian citizens of Israel endure more than 35 laws that explicitly privilege Jews as well as policies that deliberately marginalize them. West Bank Palestinians cannot drive on roads built for Israeli settlers, while Palestinians in Gaza watch as their children's intellectual and physical growth are stunted by an Israeli
siege that has limited educational opportunities and deepened poverty to acute levels.
Clearly, Palestinians and Israeli Jews will continue to live together. The question is: under what terms? Palestinians will no more accept permanent subordination than would any other people.
The answer is for Israelis and Palestinians to formalize their de facto one-state reality but on principles of equal rights rather than ethnic privilege. A carefully crafted multiyear transition including mechanisms for reconciliation would be mandatory. Israel/Palestine should have a secular, bilingual government elected on the basis of one person, one vote as well as strong constitutional guarantees of equality and protection of minorities, bolstered by international guarantees. Immigration should follow nondiscriminatory criteria. Civil marriage between members of different ethnic or religious groups should be permitted. Citizens should be free to reside in any part of the country, and public symbols, education and holidays should reflect the population's diversity.
Although the one-state option is sometimes dismissed as utopian, it overcomes major obstacles bedeviling the two-state solution. Borders need not be drawn, Jerusalem would remain undivided and Jewish settlers could stay in the West Bank. Moreover, a single state could better accommodate the return of Palestinian refugees. A state based on principles of equality and inclusion would be more morally compelling than two states based on narrow ethnic nationalism. Furthermore, it would be more consistent with antidiscrimination provisions of international law. Israelis would enjoy the international acceptance that has long eluded them and the associated benefits of friendship, commerce and travel in the Arab world.
The main obstacle to a single-state solution is the belief that Israel must be a Jewish state. Jim Crow laws and South African apartheid were similarly entrenched virtually until the eves of their demise. History suggests that no version of ethnic privilege can ultimately persist in a multiethnic society.
Israeli perspectives are already beginning to shift, most intriguingly among right-wing leaders. Former defense minister Moshe Arens recently proposed in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that Israel annex the West Bank and offer its residents citizenship. Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin and Likud parliamentarian Tzipi Hotovely have also supported citizenship for West Bank Palestinians, according to the Haaretz. In July, Hotovely said of the Israeli government's policies of separation: "The result is a solution that perpetuates the conflict and turns us from occupiers into perpetrators of massacres, to put it bluntly."
Is one of these politicians the Israeli de Klerk? That remains to be seen. Gaza is pointedly excluded from the Israeli right's annexation debate. They still envision a Jewish state, simply one with a larger Palestinian minority. But their challenge to the two-state orthodoxy, which empirical experience has proven unrealistic, is healthy.
If Americans aspire to more than managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict via perpetual and inconclusive negotiations, we should applaud this emerging discussion. Having overcome our own institutionalized racial discrimination, we can model the virtues of a vibrant, multicultural society based on equal rights. President Obama, moreover, would be a fitting emissary for this vital message.
siege that has limited educational opportunities and deepened poverty to acute levels.
(more)A de facto one-state reality has emerged, with Israel effectively ruling virtually all of the former Palestine. Yet only Jews enjoy full rights in this functionally unitary political system. In contrast, Palestinian citizens of Israel endure more than 35 laws that explicitly privilege Jews as well as policies that deliberately marginalize them. West Bank Palestinians cannot drive on roads built for Israeli settlers, while Palestinians in Gaza watch as their children's intellectual and physical growth are stunted by an Israeli
siege that has limited educational opportunities and deepened poverty to acute levels.
Clearly, Palestinians and Israeli Jews will continue to live together. The question is: under what terms? Palestinians will no more accept permanent subordination than would any other people.
The answer is for Israelis and Palestinians to formalize their de facto one-state reality but on principles of equal rights rather than ethnic privilege. A carefully crafted multiyear transition including mechanisms for reconciliation would be mandatory. Israel/Palestine should have a secular, bilingual government elected on the basis of one person, one vote as well as strong constitutional guarantees of equality and protection of minorities, bolstered by international guarantees. Immigration should follow nondiscriminatory criteria. Civil marriage between members of different ethnic or religious groups should be permitted. Citizens should be free to reside in any part of the country, and public symbols, education and holidays should reflect the population's diversity.
Although the one-state option is sometimes dismissed as utopian, it overcomes major obstacles bedeviling the two-state solution. Borders need not be drawn, Jerusalem would remain undivided and Jewish settlers could stay in the West Bank. Moreover, a single state could better accommodate the return of Palestinian refugees. A state based on principles of equality and inclusion would be more morally compelling than two states based on narrow ethnic nationalism. Furthermore, it would be more consistent with antidiscrimination provisions of international law. Israelis would enjoy the international acceptance that has long eluded them and the associated benefits of friendship, commerce and travel in the Arab world.
The main obstacle to a single-state solution is the belief that Israel must be a Jewish state. Jim Crow laws and South African apartheid were similarly entrenched virtually until the eves of their demise. History suggests that no version of ethnic privilege can ultimately persist in a multiethnic society.
Israeli perspectives are already beginning to shift, most intriguingly among right-wing leaders. Former defense minister Moshe Arens recently proposed in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that Israel annex the West Bank and offer its residents citizenship. Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin and Likud parliamentarian Tzipi Hotovely have also supported citizenship for West Bank Palestinians, according to the Haaretz. In July, Hotovely said of the Israeli government's policies of separation: "The result is a solution that perpetuates the conflict and turns us from occupiers into perpetrators of massacres, to put it bluntly."
Is one of these politicians the Israeli de Klerk? That remains to be seen. Gaza is pointedly excluded from the Israeli right's annexation debate. They still envision a Jewish state, simply one with a larger Palestinian minority. But their challenge to the two-state orthodoxy, which empirical experience has proven unrealistic, is healthy.
If Americans aspire to more than managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict via perpetual and inconclusive negotiations, we should applaud this emerging discussion. Having overcome our own institutionalized racial discrimination, we can model the virtues of a vibrant, multicultural society based on equal rights. President Obama, moreover, would be a fitting emissary for this vital message.
siege that has limited educational opportunities and deepened poverty to acute levels.
Contribute, Muslim brothers. Don’t shrug off every responsibility onto Israel — there must be more honour. Give up dreaming of genocide already. You’ve been trying for 60 years. Wake up. If god were willing, you would long since have succeeded. Help make the future better, please. Not always worse. Come on. How hard can it be? Any future would be better."
Though there r too many to count of those Arabs & Muslims who'd seem to prefer the annihilation of Jews, the bottom line is they'd be more than pleased with a fair & simple solution: abolish apartheid in Israel. Why MUST it be a "Jewish State" rather than a "Fair & Democratic State"... Let Israel open herself up to fair representation of all her people... that being said, there's still a geo-political problem... Israel annexing the West Bank would be an act of war against Jordan, who still lays claim to the political boundaries...
The real problem lies not in which American leader(s) attempt to broker peace, nor is it Hamas, whose rise to power can be directly attributed to Israel's practices & treatment of the Palestinians at large. The core of the problem is within Israel's leadership. As long as the leaders continue t...&
Though there r too many to count of those Arabs & Muslims who'd seem to prefer the annihilation of Jews, the bottom line is they'd be more than pleased with a fair & simple solution: abolish apartheid in Israel. Why MUST it be a "Jewish State" rather than a "Fair & Democratic State"... Let Israel open herself up to fair representation of all her people... that being said, there's still a geo-political problem... Israel annexing the West Bank would be an act of war against Jordan, who still lays claim to the political boundaries...
The real problem lies not in which American leader(s) attempt to broker peace, nor is it Hamas, whose rise to power can be directly attributed to Israel's practices & treatment of the Palestinians at large. The core of the problem is within Israel's leadership. As long as the leaders continue to see themselves as the superior race with superior rights to the Arabs, Christians & Muslims alike, they are nothing more than those woeful regimes we've seen fall in the past... Nazi Germany, South Africa, Rwanda, The Capetian Kingdom of France....
Trouble is? Like, no matter how much you'd like us to believe this lie? Not even Muslims themselves can really believe it.
Check it out, Joe. Just some evidence from Muslim voices. How and why they cannot believe this lie you tell.
How about this? From the Arab National Committee report, Haifa, April 27, 1948, to Arab League Governments:
'the delegation.. proudly refused to sign the truce and asked that the evacuation of the Arab population and their transfer to neighboring Arab countries be facilitated… The military and civil authorities and the Jewish representatives expressed their profound regret. The mayor of Haifa (Mr. Shabtai Levi) adjourned the meeting with a passionate appeal to the Arab population to reconsider its decision…'
Did you get that, Joe? How muslims asked jews to 'facilitate' their evacuation? How the mayor of Haifa appealed for muslims to reconsider?
Not convinced? Plagued by doubting? Check this. From Kenneth Bilby's New Star in the Near East, p. 30-31 (New York, 1950):
'The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin Al-Hussen...
Trouble is? Like, no matter how much you'd like us to believe this lie? Not even Muslims themselves can really believe it.
Check it out, Joe. Just some evidence from Muslim voices. How and why they cannot believe this lie you tell.
How about this? From the Arab National Committee report, Haifa, April 27, 1948, to Arab League Governments:
'the delegation.. proudly refused to sign the truce and asked that the evacuation of the Arab population and their transfer to neighboring Arab countries be facilitated… The military and civil authorities and the Jewish representatives expressed their profound regret. The mayor of Haifa (Mr. Shabtai Levi) adjourned the meeting with a passionate appeal to the Arab population to reconsider its decision…'
Did you get that, Joe? How muslims asked jews to 'facilitate' their evacuation? How the mayor of Haifa appealed for muslims to reconsider?
Not convinced? Plagued by doubting? Check this. From Kenneth Bilby's New Star in the Near East, p. 30-31 (New York, 1950):
'The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin Al-Husseni, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea.'
Starting to get this picture, Joe? Ready to give up on the big lie that Israel made the Palestinians refugees? Almost? Good. Here's the best muslim voice yet. Just your average refugee quoted in the Jordanian paper Ad Difaa, September 6, 1954:
'The Arab governments told us: get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.'
How about it, Joe? Think you can handle the truth?
"An Israeli source??? GTF outta here!"
Why? Only Islamist sources allowed? Oh.. wait... These were muslims. How do you call the Arab National Committee an Israeli source?
As for you complaining Al-Husseni being pro-Nazi? As if that made him somehow unique among Islamo-fascists? As if he was the only Islamist to call for muslims to leave for a couple weeks until Israel got genocided properly? Your comedy needs work.
As for you continuing to lie about jewish Palestinians persecuting muslim Palestinians from their lands? That's just braindead. This is real old here, bud. There's only you & me here. And if you can't tell how totally I see through your lie -- then you've got less intellectual acuity than even honesty.
{Israeli historian Efraim Karsh wrote, "The logic behind this policy was apparently that 'the absence of women and children from Palestine would free the men for fighting', as the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Abd al-Rahman Azzam put it." In his book, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948, Karsh cited the substantial, active role the Arab Higher Committee played in the exoduses from Haifa, Tiberias, and Jaffa as an important part of understanding what he called the "birth of the Palestinian refugee problem."[7]
A May 3, 1948 Time Magazine article attributed the exodus from the city of Haifa to fear, Arab orders to leave and a Jewish assault[8]. The Economist attributed the exodus from Haifa to orders to leave from the Higher Arab Executive as well as expulsion by Jewish troops[9]. Christopher Hitchens has expressed doubt as to the validity of the report on orders to leave from the Higher Arab Executive[10].
In the case of the village of Ein Karem, William O. Douglas was told by the villagers that the cause of their flight was twofold: first, it was caused by fear that came out o...&>>
{Israeli historian Efraim Karsh wrote, "The logic behind this policy was apparently that 'the absence of women and children from Palestine would free the men for fighting', as the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Abd al-Rahman Azzam put it." In his book, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Palestine War 1948, Karsh cited the substantial, active role the Arab Higher Committee played in the exoduses from Haifa, Tiberias, and Jaffa as an important part of understanding what he called the "birth of the Palestinian refugee problem."[7]
A May 3, 1948 Time Magazine article attributed the exodus from the city of Haifa to fear, Arab orders to leave and a Jewish assault[8]. The Economist attributed the exodus from Haifa to orders to leave from the Higher Arab Executive as well as expulsion by Jewish troops[9]. Christopher Hitchens has expressed doubt as to the validity of the report on orders to leave from the Higher Arab Executive[10].
In the case of the village of Ein Karem, William O. Douglas was told by the villagers that the cause of their flight was twofold: first, it was caused by fear that came out of the Deir Yassin massacre, and second because "the villagers were told by the Arab leaders to leave. It apparently was a strategy of mass evacuation, whether or not necessary as a military or public safety measure."[11]} -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...
**I have several friends from Ain Karem and I've heard their families' stories.
As for ur Nazi source, sure there were others calling for Israel's annihilation. Not just Muslims. There is nothing fascist about Islam though -- must u resort to names & slings when u have no foundation for argument? So where's my lie as u put it?!
And speaking of fascist... how is Israel not a fascist state?
>>fas·cism Noun /ˈfaSHˌizəm/
An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization
**(in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice
Web definitions:
a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.e...
Fascism, , is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
**The word fascist is sometimes used to denigrate people, institutions, or groups that would not describe themselves as ideologically fascist, and that may not fall within the formal definition of the word. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
**that last definition was just for your benefit -- seems u like this epithet ;-)
Coherent enough for ya?? 8-P
And aside from the well debunked Dir Yasin lies? Your sources don't even agree with each other -- or disagree with me. So there's more work needed if you are trying to disagree with my sources.
And, of course, none of this even matters. For every muslim refugee there was at least one jewish refugee. Israel settled her refugees -- like half a century ago. Islamist societies on the other hand? Never.
No one fears Israel -- the Mid-East's only democratic society. Islamist societies, on the other hand? It's worth repeating why everyone fears Islamist societies.
Because everyone knows by now how only Islamist societies remain sufficiently fundamentalist to proudly declare their genocidal ambitions, terrorize every other culture there is and righteously enslave women.
And u need to read a bit more closely -- they nearly ALL disagree with what u r saying. Read the rest of the article... Look at the population statistics of Jewish immigration over the last 75 yrs... look at the way Israel apportioned its borders, contrary to the treaties & UN resolutions... and as to "no one fears Israel" - HAH!! How naive are you?! Do u HONESTLY think no one in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, or Iran fears Israel??? Do u think that no one in Jerusalem fears Israel? I've even met Jews from Jerusalem & Ramallah that fear the IDF and the State. One dear old man, who'd been living in Jerusalem all his life (about 60 yrs) told me he now fears the Israeli gunships way more than he fears any Palestinian suicide bomber attacks. So who exactly fears Egypt? Jordan? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Lebanon? Tunisia? Libya (nowadays)? Morocco? Malaysia? Indonesia? United Arab Emirates? Bahrain? Kuwait? Qatar? Oman? Bangladesh?
As for "righteously enslav(ing) women" - where is that?
Now, if we bend the definition of "Islamist society" as u suggested, I can wholly agree w/ u; I see Afghanistan as a problem under Taliban rule, Iran under their neo-fascist regime, and ...&&
And u need to read a bit more closely -- they nearly ALL disagree with what u r saying. Read the rest of the article... Look at the population statistics of Jewish immigration over the last 75 yrs... look at the way Israel apportioned its borders, contrary to the treaties & UN resolutions... and as to "no one fears Israel" - HAH!! How naive are you?! Do u HONESTLY think no one in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, or Iran fears Israel??? Do u think that no one in Jerusalem fears Israel? I've even met Jews from Jerusalem & Ramallah that fear the IDF and the State. One dear old man, who'd been living in Jerusalem all his life (about 60 yrs) told me he now fears the Israeli gunships way more than he fears any Palestinian suicide bomber attacks. So who exactly fears Egypt? Jordan? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Lebanon? Tunisia? Libya (nowadays)? Morocco? Malaysia? Indonesia? United Arab Emirates? Bahrain? Kuwait? Qatar? Oman? Bangladesh?
As for "righteously enslav(ing) women" - where is that?
Now, if we bend the definition of "Islamist society" as u suggested, I can wholly agree w/ u; I see Afghanistan as a problem under Taliban rule, Iran under their neo-fascist regime, and some other small pockets around the globe. Not refuting that these are the worst kinds of evil -- even worse still bcz they have the effect of giving Islam a horrible black eye. How dare they use the name of this religion to further their autocratic & autoritarian ideals!
Now tell me, just how do u think Israel is much different in their form of government from Iran? If u were to substitute the names & religions A/B to B/A, u'd find hardly a hair of a difference.
Lastly, what did u mean by "for every muslim refugee there was at least one jewish refugee. Israel settled her refugees -- like half a century ago. Islamist societies on the other hand? Never."?
Here's what really happened. Warning: looong story.
On April 2, 1948, the Arab inhabitants of Dir Yassin began sniping at the Jewish Quarters of Bet Hakerem and Yefe Nof. According to reports by the Shai (Haganah Intelligence), fortifications were being constructed in the village and a large quantity of arms being stockpiled. Several days before the attack on Dir Yassin, the presence of foreign fighters was reported, including Iraqi soldiers and irregular forces. An Arab research study conducted at Bir Zeit University (near Ramallah) relates that the men of Dir Yassin took an active part in violent acts against Jewish targets and that many of the men of the village fought in the battle for Kastel, together with Abd-el-Kadr el-Husseini. The report also stated that trenches had been dug at the entry to the village, and that more than 100 men had been trained and equipped with rifles and Bren guns. A local guard force had been set up and 40 inhabitants guarded the village every night.
On April 6, 1948, Operation Nachshon was launched by the Haganah with the aim ...
Here's what really happened. Warning: looong story.
On April 2, 1948, the Arab inhabitants of Dir Yassin began sniping at the Jewish Quarters of Bet Hakerem and Yefe Nof. According to reports by the Shai (Haganah Intelligence), fortifications were being constructed in the village and a large quantity of arms being stockpiled. Several days before the attack on Dir Yassin, the presence of foreign fighters was reported, including Iraqi soldiers and irregular forces. An Arab research study conducted at Bir Zeit University (near Ramallah) relates that the men of Dir Yassin took an active part in violent acts against Jewish targets and that many of the men of the village fought in the battle for Kastel, together with Abd-el-Kadr el-Husseini. The report also stated that trenches had been dug at the entry to the village, and that more than 100 men had been trained and equipped with rifles and Bren guns. A local guard force had been set up and 40 inhabitants guarded the village every night.
On April 6, 1948, Operation Nachshon was launched by the Haganah with the aim of opening up the road to Jerusalem. The Palmach was part of this effort together with the Irgun (under Menachem Begin) and Lehi forces, their first combined operation. On Thursday, April 8, 1948 they launched an attack on Dir Yassin between 4 and 5 AM. A loudspeaker mounted on an armored car warned the Arabs and asked them to evacuate their women and children. Hundreds left, but hundreds stayed. A pitched battle ensued, and when the smoke cleared, 110 to 120 Arabs were killed, 40 Jews were seriously injured and four Jews were dead. The number killed has been confirmed even by Palestinian Arab researchers, such as Bir Zeit University professor Sharif Kanaana who puts the number no higher than 120 (although he clings to the claim of massacre). Another contemporary Arab source deflates the number killed to less than 100, stating, after a count, "that there were no more than 46 corpses". The head of the coroner unit, professor Yehoshua Arieli, testified that the number was 110.
The use of the loudsepaker to warn the civilians to evacuate is a key point, certainly not the action of soldiers planning to murder the population. The loudspeaker is not in dispute. A publication of the Arab League titled Israeli Aggression states:
* On the night of April 9, 1948, the peaceful Arab village of Deir Yassin was surprised by a loudspeaker, which called on the population to evacuate it immediately.
The village was not peaceful, but the essential part of this quote agrees with Jewish accounts.
The massacre claim, meaning the killing of defenceless people, has long since been discredited by the Israeli government and every other historical study. The story persists because pro-Arab sources constantly repeat it, often inflating the number of dead to 250 or more. There are completely fictional accounts written about Arabs being marched to the mosque and shot against the walls, or even worse stories of torture, rape or any other shocking aspect the storyteller invents. As an example, here is how one Arab website describes the scene:
* [The Jews used] machine guns, then grenades and finished of with knives. Women's bellies were cut open and babies were butchered in the hands of their helpless mothers. Around 250 people were murdered in cold blood. Of them 25 pregnant women were bayoneted in the abdomen while still alive. 52 children were maimed under the eyes of their own mothers, and they were slain and their heads cut off.
To say there is not a shread of evidence for these embellishments is giving them too much credit. On the contrary, there are eyewitness accounts from the time, Jewish and Arab, that tell the story as it happened. For example, according to the Daily Telegraph, April 8, 1998, Ayish Zeidan, a resident of the village and a survivor of the fighting there, stated:
* The Arab radio talked of women being killed and raped, but this is not true... I believe that most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters. The Arab leaders committed a big mistake. By exaggerating the atrocities they thought they would encourage people to fight back harder. Instead they created panic and people ran away.
Dir Yassin was a reasonable military target for Jewish forces, there was warning given before the battle, a fierce battle was fought with casualties on both sides. No massacre, no mutiliations, no atrocities.
Palestinian Arab eyewitnesses have recently admitted that some of their claims about Dir Yassin were deliberate fabrications. The issue of the Jerusalem Report dated April 2, 1998 describes a BBC television program in which Hazem Nusseibeh, an editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service's Arabic news in 1948, admits that he was told by Hussein Khalidi, a prominent Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate claims of atrocities at Dir Yassin in order to encourage Arab regimes to invade the expected Jewish state.
According to the Jerusalem Report:
* Nusseibeh "describes an encounter at the Jaffa Gate of Jerusalem's Old City with Deir Yassin survivors and Palestinian leaders, including Hussein Khalidi... 'I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story,' recalled Nusseibeh. 'He said, "We must make the most of this." So we wrote a press release stating that at Deir Yassin children were murdered, pregnant women were raped. All sorts of atrocities.' "
The BBC program then shows a recent interview with Abu Mahmud, who was a Dir Yassin resident in 1948, who says:
* ... the villagers protested against the atrocity claims: We said, "There was no rape." [Khalidi] said, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews."
Khalidi was one of the originators of the "massacre" allegation in 1948. It was Khalidi's claims about Jewish atrocities in Dir Yassin that were the basis for an article in the New York Times by its correspondent, Dana Schmidt (on April 12, 1948), claiming a massacre took place. The Times article has been widely reprinted and cited as "proof" of the massacre throughout the past 50 years.
Nusseibeh, who is a member of one of Jerusalem's most prominent Arab families and presently lives in Amman, told the BBC that the fabricated atrocity stories about Dir Yassin were:
* "...our biggest mistake," because "Palestinians fled in terror" and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims.
Want to read even more? http://www.hirhome.com/israel...
Like the voice of Mahmoud Abbas when he wrote (March 1976 in Falastin al-Thawra, the then official journal of the PLO in Beirut):
'The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe… The Arab states succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people.'
Like the voice of Khaled al-Azm, Syrian Prime Minister during 1948-49, when he wrote in his memoirs:
'… the call by the Arab Governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and to leave for the bordering Arab countries, after having sown terror among them… Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave… We have brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees, by calling upon them and pleading with them to leave their land, their homes, their work and business…'
Starting to get the drift, Joe? No? That's alright Joe. It's totally your prerogative to keep on lying. As if that makes you "cool". As if.
As to the specific failure of the neighboring Arab countries to fail to deliver on their promises to the Palestinians, that has nothing to do with the massacres (Israeli history - check it out) up thru 1948 (and beyond). Look at what's been happening in Gaza lately. Imagine u r a school teacher. U r teaching a class when suddenly a firecracker comes outta u-dunno-where and explodes on ur desk frightening the bejeezes out of u... so then u calmly invite the teachers from the neighboring classrooms in. En masse u take out ur Glock pistols and start indiscriminately shooting at ur students, who have nowhere to run to escape u.
Gettin the picture yet kewpie?
You'll get notice next time I post a question. Come back when there's more people around -- there's no point ridiculing you privately.
Actually, if you want to keep debating, you can come by my site.
No one denies that some of the Arab leaders encouraged Palestinians to leave. But if u had been 1 of those Palestinians, don't u think u'd've planned an orderly & timely exodus WITH all ur personal documents such as passport & birth certificates, land deeds, other identification cards, etc.?? Then why would u reckon that most of the refugees from Palestine left all that behind? Only one who leaves in a great hurry would do so - and the fact that a mojority did so tells u only 1 logical conclusion... they get to GTH outta Dodge while the gettin was good.
The "admissions" of Abbas & Azm (btw, Abbas is even LESS liked than Bush in his last days), 2 men of questionable character & nature, are irrelevant to the case at hand... DID Israel force out massive numbers of Palestians or not? A majority of scholars today say resoundingly YES they WERE.
Now, if u still don't wanna continue our debate I completely understand ;-)
It is not enough to write disagreeably. If you want me to call this a debate -- you have to figure out how to actually disagree.
Too bad that majority of Islamist and Islamist-sympathizing scholars can't keep distracting from what we all know by now. Like, not just in New York or in London -- or in Moscow, Madrid and Mumbai. Everyone. Everyone already knows how only Islamist societies remain sufficiently fundamentalist to proudly declare their genocidal ambitions, terrorize every other culture there is and righteously enslave women.
Interesting that u fail to bring the rest of that debate out in ur video response. :-/ Ms. Wafa admits that she belongs to no religion whatsoever, However there is a glaring error in her debates, that is that the advances of modern science have nothing to do with Islam (or Arabs for that matter?). How little she knows of her own heritage. If u wear a watch or check the clock to know what time it is, u can thank a Muslim. If u can do complex mathematics, u can thank a Muslim. If u have studied Biology or Genetics, u can thank a Muslim (or curse, depending on ur prowess in such disciplines - lol).
All that being said, just what part of her diatribe supports any of ur arguments? Seems YOU are the one who has no idea how to debate or disagree - except to disagree w/ me on this point alone. :p
Now do u wanna debate from a purely secular p-o-v or from the p-o-v of religion??
Even that u say it's no debate is a debate... not disagreeing with u that SOME Arab leaders encouraged Palestinians to leave is NOT saying at all that the majority of Palestinians left due to that encouragement. I have refuted EVERY concept u've put forth, yet u can't seem to make any argument stick; therefore, now u try to argue that my argument is not an argument at all. Go back and re-read our discussion. U actually have no "evidence" at all that any Jews encouraged the Palestinian population to stay.
So it seems that YOU are the one who needs a lesson in how to disagree and put forth a viable argument.
You may, of course, discount the evidence as falsely as you please. But to say there's no evidence at all is just delusional.
Heh. You're in the wrong room. This is the intelligent debating room. The delusional contradicting room is down the hall.
You may, of course, discount the evidence as falsely as you please. But to say there's no evidence at all is just delusional.
Heh. You're in the wrong room. This is the intelligent debating room. The delusional contradicting room is down the hall.
You may, of course, discount the evidence as falsely as you please. But to say there's no evidence at all is just delusional.
You're in the wrong room. This is the intelligent debating room. The delusional contradicting room is down the hall.
But it so doesn't matter. Because you don't have to have survived Islamist attacks in New York or in London or in Madrid or in Moscow or in Mumbai to know by now. Hell -- how can anyone on earth not know by now?
Only Islamist societies remain sufficiently fundamentalist to proudly declare their genocidal ambitions, terrorize every other culture there is and righteously enslave women.
I asked what ur experience is with this issue... u seem to take it awfully personally.
Do u think that in NYC or London or Madrid or Moscow or Mumbai that u'd have a gr8er chance of gettin blown up by a terrorist or becoming a victim of some localized crime? Hmmmm... time to use that intelligence of urs ;-)
Too bad we're not so easily distracted. Why should "localized crime" ever make us forget how only Islamist societies remain sufficiently fundamentalist to proudly declare their genocidal ambitions, terrorize every other culture there is and righteously enslave women.
And ur own contradictions speak volumes... 1st u say that the Palestinians were "begged" to leave by the Arab leaders - then u say they were "begged" to stay .. so which is it??
Is THAT what u would call "intelligent debate"? If so, GW Bush oughta be elected as next president of MENSA! (U can be his VP)
It also seems terribly needy. Let's see how long it keeps responding -- when nobody's even talking to it.
Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky:
STATEMENT TO THE U.N. SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE July 16, 1947:
"From the time of King Solomon to our very days the Holy Land was either united with Trans-Jordan or attached to Syria or Turkey. Western Palestine was never a single and independent entity and certainly a part of that cannot possibly constitute an independent state, as envisaged in the various plans that are discussed from time to time.
However, the basic reason for our opposition to an Independent Jewish state as that in prevailing circumstances the officially recognised representation of the Jewish people does not consider the authority of the Holy Law as binding in the public affairs of the Jewish people and it is contrary to the wishes of G-d to create a Jewish State. ."
Jul 15, 2010;Jews in Belgium Protest the Desecration of Ancient Jewish Cemeteries in the Holy Land and to clarify that the Zionist do not represent Jewry.
Four hundred Orthodox Jews from Antwerp, Belgium traveled to the capital city of Brussels today (Thursday) to participate in a protest outside the Israeli consulate. They expressed their opposition to the Zionist state, and to its desecration of ancient graves and brutal silencing of protestors.".
http://www.jewsagainstzionism...
I think that as long as Israel and Palestinians have different religious beliefs, they will never reach a peaceful solution.
Now all you idiots that say Obama will fail again, well, I didn't see any of YOUR Presidents get it settled either.