U.S. offers incentives to Israeli to halt settlements 90 days

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"In a bid to jumpstart the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, the United States has proposed that Israel impose a 90-day settlement construction freeze in the West Bank in exchange for incentives, according to Israeli government sources.

Returning from a recent visit to the United States, Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu late Saturday convened a meeting of top cabinet officials to discuss the American proposal, the sources said.

It was not clear early Sunday whether the cabinet had acted on the proposal.

In return for the temporary freeze, the U.S. government would oppose international efforts to impose a political solution on Israel in the peace process or to "delegitimize" the country, said the sources, who would not speak for attribution.

The White House would not ask for another extension of the settlement construction freeze beyond the 90 days, the sources said.

And, they said, President Barack Obama would ask Congress to approve the sale of 20 advanced fighter planes to Israel."

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/11/13/israel.us.incentives/

[Violet_Crumble]

1. That seems a very lopsided offer...

In return for the temporary freeze, the U.S. government would oppose international efforts to impose a political solution on Israel in the peace process or to "delegitimize" the country, said the sources, who would not speak for attribution.

I bet that opposition won't have a 90 day expiry date on it....

[shaayecanaan]

2. One fighter plane for every four days of not building settlements...

a pretty good deal, all told.

[azurnoir]

3. I'm really confused here didn't the US already agree to Israel

20 F-35's? This is from 8/15/10

Israel to purchase 20 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets
Defense Minister Barak's approval of the $2.7 billion deal comes after more than two years of tough negotiations involving the Israeli and U.S. defense establishments and Lockheed Martin.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-to-purchase-20-lockheed-martin-f-35-fighter-jets-1.308177

so now they will be a gift or what? Israel was already purchasing them with American given funds or will our tithe to Israel go up to $6 billion for this year?

as to Congress and protection from the "international community" for Israel our Congress is already having a competition as which side of the aisle can do what is known in the medical world as the knee-chest position the best, one that will get stiffer when the 112th Congress convenes and haven't we been protecting Israel from that eeeeevil "international community" for decades now?

IMO Netanyahu will calmly wait till his good friend Eric Cantor comes into power as Cantor has sworn to Israel that he will keep Obama "in check" for them

[kayecy]

4. Obama, Obama,...... has history taught you nothing?

Obama, Obama.......has history taught you nothing?
.
When a democracy offers to buy off a bully pursuing military occupation, it only leads to the bully demanding more and more....

Shame on you!.....Appeasement as a foreign policy has long since been discredited.
.

[shira]

7. Says the guy from Cyprus, who can't be bothered to speak out against Turkey.

:eyes:

[kayecy]

9. Says the Zionist who is not prepared to speak out against Zionism......

Says the Zionist who is not prepared to speak out against Zionism......I'm neither an apologist for Turkish-Cypriot nor Greek-Cypriot crimes against humanity and this board is not about Cyprus.....

You are a Zionist and yet for some reason are unable to answer simple, clear questions on the morality of your creed.....

I guess that is why you restrict yourself to petty sniping.....

[shira]

10. We can go at it again if you'd like, as long as you answer my questions. I'll do my best to answer

...yours as well.

Of course, when your points are factually refuted then admit it, okay?

[kayecy]

12. "Factually refuted"!!..........Which of my points were you thinking of?.....

Of course, when your points are factually refuted then admit it, okay?

Which of my points were you thinking of?

My point that Zionism was a colonialist venture?

Even you have been unable to find any facts which disprove that!

[shira]

13. So Jews escaping persecution and pogroms throughout Europe, Russia...

...as well as those ousted from neighboring Arab countries were all colonialists? Not much different than other colonialists supported by their home countries in order to take advantage of 3rd world civilizations?

:shrug:

That's your argument? These people who were outcasts in the countries they came from, and actually bought their own private land in Israel, just conveniently claimed "persecution" in order to cover for their "colonialist" intentions?

I mean, seriously? Because if that's your claim, it cannot possibly be more offensive.

I'd move onto other points WRT refugees for example, but let's see how this goes...



ps
Here's an article clearly refuting the absurd claim that Zionism = Colonialism...
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_colonialism_claim.php

[kayecy]

15. The term "colonialist enterprise" might seem offensive to you but............

I mean, seriously? Because if that's your claim, it cannot possibly be more offensive.

The term "colonialist enterprise" might seem offensive to you, but the early Zionists and others of the time called it exactly that....

The old Zionists knew that their enterprise involved taking over land which was being farmed by locals....They knew this would involve the creation of landless peasantry, leaving thousands with no means of livelyhood.....That is what was truly offensive.

Even worse, they planned deliberately to disenfranchise the locals....The Zionists and modern Israelis are proud to call themselves 'democratic' but the early Zionists had no intention of allowing universal suffrage until they had engineered a majority by massive immigration.

Yes, many early Zionists were escaping persecution but that doesn't excuse them achieving a homeland by depriving another people of their right to self-determination.


I can understand you being offended by the term "colonialist" but that is no excuse for trying to deny that was the term used by the early Zionists.
.
.

ps Here's an article clearly refuting the absurd claim that Zionism = Colonialism...
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_colonialism_cl...

I support my claim by showing you that the early Zionists are on record as describing their venture as 'colonialist'....What do you offer to refute this?....An article published on an ultra-Zionist website by a microbiologist known for his pro-Zionism!........You call that 'factually refuted'?
.

[shira]

16. So Zionism was driven by Colonialism, not Nationalism? You're also attributing nefarious motives...

...to the entire Zionist movement, as though there was some secret "Zionist" plan all along to dispossess and disenfranchise the natives (which also included Jews who lived in that area for centuries). What actual PROOF do you have that Zionism wasn't really a Nationalist movement for oppressed people but instead an underhanded foreign-backed Colonialist enterprise to rob people they hated and could take advantage of? Anything at all? I'm guessing you have nothing, like people today who say Israel really doesn't want peace despite the offers in 2000 and 2008, the Lebanon and Gaza withdrawals, and peace accords with Egypt and Jordan. It looks like you're doing the same thing - attributing the worst motives to 'Zionists' without a shred of proof.

As my link proved, Zionism is nothing like historical Colonialism and it takes disingenuous mental acrobatics to make such a case. It doesn't matter whether some early Zionists called it Colonialism. For all we know, they were using the language of their critics to describe what was going on at the time. People call Israel a theocracy or an Apartheid/Nazi state with a deliberate policies of ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide when none of that language is appropriate to describe Israel. Same goes for the term colonialism.

To prove my point - how should the early Zionists have played things out? They shouldn't have gone to Israel at all? I want you to assume Zionism really was a Nationalist movement for oppressed people. They shouldn't have bought land? What would have made a NATIONALIST movement like Zionism avoid any semblance to authentic Colonialism? If you can't answer that, it's obvious you're blowing smoke.

[arcticken]

17. When you hear colonial in any reference to Israel

you are dealing with an ideological throwback. These dinosaurs of political thought are seldom worth arguing with. Peace is NOT at the forefront of what they want to accomplish. In that sense they are irrelevant.

[shira]

18. The problem is proponents of 'colonial' theory don't believe Jews have a legitimate claim to Israel.

They can't even admit that the problem is between 2 competing nationalities.

If they can define Zionism as Colonialism, then they can hold out hope that like other historical colonialist ventures, Israel will cease to exist sometime soon. Rather than admit Jews are permanently attached to and belong in Israel as equal neighbors, they'd rather believe that Jews should leave and "go back" to NYC or Poland (thanks Helen Thomas). Like you wrote, this argument does not lead to tolerance and peaceful coexistence. Its only aim is to delegitimize and dehumanize evil Zionists (with whom there can be no peace) and therefore prolong the conflict. There's not a thing right with Zionism or Israel, which is why it's compared to Naziism and Apartheid (movements that do not deserve to exist). EVERYTHING about Israel is wrong and illegitimate. The motives of Zionists are always underhanded, evil, conspiratorial....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. That's not a problem.

Jews from outside Israel (which, before the Nakba, was nearly all of us) didn't have a legitimate claim to Israel. They had a desire for it, but no more right to live there than any other group of foreigners.

Nowadays, a small majority of Jews are native Israel, and those do have a right to continue to live there - as do the Palestinians who were driven out in the Nakba.


The problem is that zionist Jews do not want to live as equal neighbours, they want a Jewish state. Zionism *is* evil, and *is* - like all racist and colonialist philosophies - illegitimate but pointing this out is not "dehumanising".

There is no hope of a consensual peace between the Palestinians and Israel - most zionists simply aren't interested in ending the occupation; the division in Israel is between those who are proud of not wanting peace (like the current government) and those who have vague visions of a peace which involves them continuing the occupation and the Palestinians stopping opposing it (like Livni). The only hope is for an externally-imposed peace, brought about by the threat of economic sanctions which make Israel choose between its living conditions and the settlements.

Ending the occupation won't make zionism a legimitate philosophy, and it won't stop me pointing that out, but it will be enough to make peace. Nothing else will.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arcticken]

33. Slipping? n/t

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

48. Please - you indicted yourself. So Zionists are not evil and racist for subscribing to Zionism?

If Zionism is evil and racist, then its supporters are just as bad as anyone who supported the S.African apartheid regime.

Right or wrong?

And get real - allowing full RoR in some one-state solution would eventually put the PLO in power at best, or Hamas at worst. You cannot possibly call yourself a liberal and be for that kind of scenario.

IN FACT, since you're all for full RoR, "equality and justice", then how would you prevent the PLO and HAMAS from coming into power and turning Israel into another failed state like Syria or Jordan once Jews are outvoted? How do you think Jews would fare in such a state? And please be honest.

[shira]

55. Donald, where did you go? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

25. You appear to object to so many words being used in relation to Israel..

Now there's 'colonial' to add to 'fascism'. Here's a question for you. I notice you were very quick to call others who weren't Israeli fascists and suspect strongly you have no objection to the term 'colonial' being used to describe the settling of other countries. Singling Israel out for special treatment is wrong, so why do you do it? Also, yr post makes no sense at all. Whether or not someone thinks Israel was a colonial enterprise has nothing at all to do with whether they want peace or not. Those who blindly defend Nutty and everything the Israeli govt does are not interested in a peace that's fair for both Palestinians and Israelis, and the reason for that is because Nutty and his gang of RW extremists and fascists have made it very clear through their own words and actions that they aren't looking for peace with the Paleestinians...

[kayecy]

23. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely .......

So Zionism was driven by Colonialism, not Nationalism? You're also attributing nefarious motives..to the entire Zionist movement, as though there was some secret "Zionist" plan all along to dispossess and disenfranchise the natives ................ What actual PROOF do you have .......I'm guessing you have nothing.....

Zionism was a colonoial enterprise in that it deliberately planned to create its homeland in a land that was already peopled by a different race - Palestinian Arabs....You want evidence?

1. "We shall have to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employments in our own country. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly.'" – Hertzl Diaries, 1895

2. “There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.” - The Iron wall - Jabotinsky (1923)

3. "Between Ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country.... We shall not achieve our goal of being an independent people with the Arabs in this small Country. The only solution is a Palestine, at least Western Palestine (west of the Jordan river without Arabs. And there is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to transfer all of them; not one village, not one tribe, should be left." – Joseph Weitz, head of the jewish Agency, 1940.


I suppose you will claim these early Zionists ...."were using the language of their critics to describe what was going on at the time."?......Language or not,there was a deliberate Zionist plan to dispossess and disenfranchise the natives....That was immoral!

Whether Zionism was a legitimate national movement or not is immaterial....Nothing can justify dispossession and disenfranchisement of the locals....

[shira]

28. A few problems with your selected quotes...

Those guys weren't in charge. Also, if the Arabs hadn't declared war on Israel in 1948, not one Arab would have been displaced, dispossessed, or disenfranchised. Hard to admit that, isn't it? In fact, up until 1948 Arab immigration into Israel from neighboring Arab countries outnumbered Jewish immigration. All these schemes and conspiracies would have never been realized if Israel wasn't attacked in 1948. Even then, most Arab refugees were ordered by their leaders to get out of the way. Only a small minority of all Arab refugees were the result of Zionists sweeping them out - due almost entirely to the war situation. So much for this evil, racist Zionist plot...

:eyes:

Do you think the partition plan - which created 2 states based on majority Jewish or Arab population was also unjust in that it disenfranchised the Arabs of that region?

======


Here's the Herzl quote in full WRT Argentina - by far the most "damning" quote you came up with - funny how there's not more out there:

Altneuland was written both for Jews and non-Jews: Herzl wanted to win over non-Jewish opinion for Zionism.<24> When he was still thinking of Argentina as a possible venue for massive Jewish immigration, he mentioned in his diary he

"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly … It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example … Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas , we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us", "The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl", vol. 1 (New York: Herzl Press and Thomas Yoseloff, 1960), pp. 88, 90 (hereafter Herzl diaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl

Not half as bad as you'd want it presented, is it?

You may as well quote from Feiglin and Lieberman to demonstrate applicable Zionist policy now. They can say whatever they wish - whether there's ever any policy or action Israel takes based on their ramblings is another story altogether. Same for your quotes.

[arcticken]

34. Let's hope that if the Palestinians declare their

own sovereignity, they are treated far more civilly than Israel was in 1948 and thereafter.

[kayecy]

51. ".....if the Arabs hadn't declared war on Israel in 1948, not one Arab would have been displaced",!

I give you three quotes of early Zionist leaders’ plans for Palestine and what do you respond with?

Here's the Herzl quote in full WRT Argentina....

What on earth has the Argentine got to do with Palestine?.....Does your quote in any way prove that the early Zionists did not plan to to dispossess the natives of Palestine?.....

Also, if the Arabs hadn't declared war on Israel in 1948, not one Arab would have been displaced, dispossessed, or disenfranchised. Hard to admit that, isn't it?...

And you got that “fact” from where?.......Let me me bring to your notice the Sursock land deal which was just one of instances of dispossession in the early 1920s:

“.....neither the Sursocks nor the Zionists made provisions for the Arab tenants who worked the land,however, and the result was that several thousand peasants were evicted from the land on which the families of some of them had lived for generations.” – Tessler, A history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

...also:
“...about one-fifth of Arab villagers are already landless.” – British High Commissioner, 1935.

....and the spurning of one Zionist with moral principles:
“The vision of non-exclusivist, peaceful cooperation to replace the practice of dispossession found few takers. Epstein was maligned and scorned for his faintheartedness.” - Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, “Original Sins.”


Apart from your irrelevant Herzl quote on the Argentine, what other original sources can you quote in support of your claim that “if the Arabs hadn't declared war on Israel in 1948, not one Arab would have been displaced, dispossessed, or disenfranchised.”......Remember, original sources.....ie not Zionist opinion.
.

[shira]

52. I quoted Herzl in context after you attempted to misrepresent him.

The fact is, quoting from a few sources and giving a few examples from some individuals is NOT proof that the entire Zionist movement is evil and racist.

You may as well quote exclusively from Kahane, Lieberman, and Feiglin and only cite actions from the most extreme settlers to portray ALL Israelis as inherently evil and racist. That's EXACTLY what you're doing here in your attempts. You're accusing the many based on the words or actions of a few.

What if someone here quoted exclusively from the absolute worst of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and PLO members in order to prove how evil and racist the entire Palestinian movement is? Would you find that acceptable?

If I quote only from Tea partiers in America, doesn't that prove that America is as evil and racist as the entire Zionist movement?

Do you see what you're doing now?

[kayecy]

53. Exactly how did I attempt to misrepresent Herzl?.........

"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly … It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion.

I quoted Herzl in context after you attempted to misrepresent him.

Exactly how did I attempt to misrepresent Herzl?

The fact is, quoting from a few sources and giving a few examples from some individuals is NOT proof that the entire Zionist movement is evil and racist.

I have never claimed that the entire Zionist movement was evil......What I do claim is that most, if not all of the Zionist leaders, knew that pursuing a Jewish homeland in Palestine would require the native population to be disenfranchised and dispossessed.


I have shown you the views of Herzl and Jabotinsky....Now look at what the other Zionist leaders were saying:

Ben-Gurion:
"We do not recognize the right of the Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders." - Ben-Gurion 1924

Weizmann:
"‘What about the Arabs …?’asked Weizmann
‘Well – how can you ever hope to make Palestine your homeland in the face of the vehement opposition of the Arabs who, after all, are in the majority in this country?’...The Zionist leader shrugged his shoulders and answered dryly:
‘We expect they won’t be in a majority after a few years.’" - Mohamed Assad, The Road to Mecca


You claim to have factual support for your views but to date you have provided not one historical quote yourself to justify your claims.......I turn the question back to you.....What proof do you have that the early Zionist leaders did not plan to to disenfranchise and dispossess the natives?


I look forward to seeing your evidence. (Not Zionist opinion, please)

[shira]

54. Counter-quotes for you....

“We strongly protest against the attitude of the said delegation concerning the Zionist question. We do not consider the Jewish people as an enemy whose wish is to crush us. On the contrary, we consider the Jews as a brotherly people sharing our joys and troubles and helping us in the construction of our common country, We are certain that without Jewish immigration and financial assistance there will be no future development in our country as may be judged from the fact that the town inhabited in part by Jews such as Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa and Tiberias are making steady progress while Nablus, Acre and Nazareth, where no Jews reside, are steadily declining.”
-Hasan Shukri, 1921, Muslim Mayor of Haifa

Eretz Israel is not an empty country ... West of Jordan alone houses three quarter of a million people. On no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants. Only "Ghetto Dreamers" like Zangwill can imagine that Eretz Israel will be given to the Jews with the added right of dispossessing the current inhabitants of the country. This is not the mission of Zionism. Had Zionism to aspire to inherit the place of these inhabitants—it would be nothing but a dangerous utopia and an empty, damaging and reactionary dream … Not to take from others—but to build the ruins. no rights on our past—but on our future. Not the preservation of historic inheritance—but the creation of new national assets—this is the core claim and right of the Hebrew nation in its country. <4>
-Ben Gurion 1918

If indeed there is among the Arabs a national movement, we must relate to it with the utmost seriousness ... The Arabs are concerned about two issues: 1. The Jews will soon come in their millions and conquer the country and chase out the Arabs ... Responsible Zionists never said and never wished such things. 2. There is no place in Eretz Israel for a large number of inhabitants. This is total ignorance. It is enough to notice what is happening now in Tunis, Tangier, and California to realize that there is a vast space here for a great work of many Jews, without touching even one Arab.<6>
-Chaim Weizmann

We should not attempt to turn the Arabs into Zionists. I do not see why an Arab need be a Zionist. But we must explain to him what Zionism is, what it aspires to achieve, on what it rests, what its power and promises are and what its attitude is toward the Arabs in this land and the Arab nation in our neighborhood. It is imperative that the Arab knows that we have not come here to dispossess him, to subjugate him, or to worsen his condition. The Arab must know that Zionism is not an accidental, temporary phenomenon but a historical imperative, that it relies on the needs and strength of the entire Jewish nation, and that it is impossible to dismiss or silence it …
-Ben Gurion 1930

Many of us still think in full honesty that a terrible misunderstanding has occurred, that the Arabs did not understand us, and that this is the reason why they oppose us; but if only we could explain to them how benevolent our intentions, they would stretch their hands back to us. This is a mistake that has been proven so again and again. I will bring one such incident. Several years ago, when the late Nahum Sokolov visited Eretz Israel, and he was one of the most moderate and diplomatic Zionists at that time, he delivered an elaborate speech on this misunderstanding. He explained clearly how mistaken Arabs are in thinking that we wish to steal their property or dispossess them or oppress them. "We do not even want to have a Jewish government; we want merely a government representing the League of Nations." Sokolov's speech received an immediate response in the main editorial of the Arab newspaper Carmel, the content of which I convey here from memory: "The Zionists—so wrote the Arab editor—are tormenting their nerves unnecessarily. There is no misunderstanding here whatsoever. The Arabs never doubted that the potential absorption capacity of Eretz Israel is enormous and, therefore, that it is possible to settle here enough Jews without dispossessing or constraining even a single Arab. It is obvious that ‘this is all' the Zionists want. But it is also obvious that this is precisely what the Arabs do not want; for, then, the Jews will turn into a majority and, from the nature of things, a Jewish government will be established and the fate of the Arab minority will depend on Jewish good will; Jews know perfectly well what minority existence is like. There is no misunderstanding here whatsoever."
-Zev Jabotinsky 1937

[kayecy]

56. Congratulations Shira!.......You are now adding something to the discussion!

Now you are actually contributing something to the discussion!.....The only thing is, if Weizmann and Ben-Gurion really meant what they said in your quotes, why did they say what they said in mine?......Why indeed, did they do so much to encourage Jews to come and swamp the natives when they knew this would give the lie to their public utterances?

If indeed there is among the Arabs a national movement, we must relate to it with the utmost seriousness ... The Arabs are concerned about two issues: 1. The Jews will soon come in their millions and conquer the country and chase out the Arabs ... Responsible Zionists never said and never wished such things. 2. There is no place in Eretz Israel for a large number of inhabitants. This is total ignorance. It is enough to notice what is happening now in Tunis, Tangier, and California to realize that there is a vast space here for a great work of many Jews, without touching even one Arab.<6>
-Chaim Weizmann

So what happened.......Not many 'responsible Zionists'?.... or was Weizmann being two-faced? (You forgot to mention your quote was part of an article Weizmann wrote for the Ha'aretz.....He would hardly state his true feelings in such a public forum!)

We should not attempt to turn the Arabs into Zionists. I do not see why an Arab need be a Zionist. But we must explain to him what Zionism is, what it aspires to achieve, on what it rests, what its power and promises are and what its attitude is toward the Arabs in this land and the Arab nation in our neighborhood. It is imperative that the Arab knows that we have not come here to dispossess him, to subjugate him, or to worsen his condition. The Arab must know that Zionism is not an accidental, temporary phenomenon but a historical imperative, that it relies on the needs and strength of the entire Jewish nation, and that it is impossible to dismiss or silence it …
-Ben Gurion 1930

Again, what happened?......Why did the Zionists end up dispossessing so many natives?

......It is obvious that ‘this is all' the Zionists want. But it is also obvious that this is precisely what the Arabs do not want; for, then, the Jews will turn into a majority and, from the nature of things, a Jewish government will be established and the fate of the Arab minority will depend on Jewish good will; Jews know perfectly well what minority existence is like. There is no misunderstanding here whatsoever."
-Zev Jabotinsky 1937

Now here you have dug up a quote from an honest Zionist leader......"the Jews will turn into a majority"......No ifs or buts, Jabotinsky new exactly what Zionism was after......Disenfranchisement of the natives!


Thank you for your quotes Shira, I think when you put my quotes alongside your quotes you will see that Weizmann and Ben-Gurion were clearly two faced....They told their supporters one thing and the rest of the world another.....The results of their actions confirm this....Zionism resulted in disenfranchisement and dispossession.


As for Jabotinsky, well I admire his honesty....Everything I have read about him says he put Zionism first and to hell with any people in his way.....Why don't you admit you think the same?

[shira]

60. I've told you repeatedly why things turned out as they did...

Regional Arab leadership decided to go to war against the Jews and that is the reason why disenfranchisement and dispossession happened.

I quoted from Arab leaders of that time period who blame the refugee problem entirely on Arab regimes. Without war, not one Arab would have been forcibly removed from his/her home, disenfranchised, dispossessed, etc. Not even the 1948 partition plan would have disposessed or disenfranchised one Arab of that time period.

Your argument seems to hinge on the "fact" that Zionist leaders required the Arab states to declare war against the Jews in order for "real" Zionist aspirations to materialize.

And that's bat-shit absurd!

======

ON EDIT:

Think of it this way. In the USA, there are several VERY Jewish areas like Brooklyn NY, Monsey NJ, Newton MA, etc. Did Jews move to those areas to disenfranchise non-Jews? The same is pretty much true of Israel.

If there hadn't been wars of 1948 and 1967, the Jewish homeland would consist of only the land granted to Jews based on Jewish majority from the 1948 partition plan. You think if the Jewish homeland were restricted only to that, you'd have proof of "evil, racist" Zionist conspiracy theory?

:shrug:

You'd have a much better case if you could prove both the 1948 and 1967 wars were started by the Jews in order to carry out the "evil, racist" Zionist plans you attribute WRONGLY to Zionism's earliest leaders.

[kayecy]

66. Did the Jews ever think they might become the majority in the USA?.......

Think of it this way. In the USA, there are several VERY Jewish areas like Brooklyn NY, Monsey NJ, Newton MA, etc. Did Jews move to those areas to disenfranchise non-Jews? The same is pretty much true of Israel.

One small detail may have escaped your notice Shira....Did the Jews ever think they might become the majority in the USA?

Think of it this way....If, today, US Jews decided to declare Brooklyn an independent sovereign state....What do you think would be the reaction of the non-Jewish US citizens?

You'd have a much better case if you could prove both the 1948 and 1967 wars were started by the Jews in order to carry out the "evil, racist" Zionist plans you attribute WRONGLY to Zionism's earliest leaders.

All in good time Shira......First lets agree on how the conflict began.......Conflicts don't usually start without one(or both)of the belligerents feeling threatened.

[shira]

67. They hoped to become the majority in Israel...

...but even that wouldn't have happened had war not been declared on them and Jews booted out of neighboring Arab countries. Just as Jews wish to live by majority in Brooklyn, among each other. Historically, things turn out SAFER that way for Jews.

They had no power to limit Arab immigration (as was being done to them), send Arabs out of the country or bring Jews either by force or against their will into the area.

When the Zionist movement began, do you REALLY think there was a plan to pry away the land by force from the Ottoman empire, expel Arabs, and bring Jews in against their will?

Do you think the 1948 partition plan was unjust?

[kayecy]

68. The natives of Palestine were simply trying to stop mass Jewish immigration into their land.......

You decided to use Brooklyn as an analogy for Israel.....As you have chosen to make no further comment, can I take it that you now accept that had the Zionists chosen to try to become a majority in the US through mass immigration as they did in Palestine, they would inevitably have come into conflict with the US locals?

..They hoped to become the majority in Israel...

So let me get this clear......You think it was OK for Zionists to chose a land, one whose people were unable to defend themselves, and then arrange mass immigration into it in order to achieve a majority over the natives?

..Do you think the 1948 partition plan was unjust?

I can see you think Israel has no responsibility for the 1948 conflict, and I will be happy to debate that in due course....However, first let's see if we can agree that the 1920s natives of Palestine were doing no more than the Great Powers, Argentine etc were doing at the same time......The natives were simply trying to stop mass Jewish immigration into their land.......Can you agree with that statement?

[shira]

69. But why? In America, that's racism.

When minorities move into "WHITE" neighborhoods, buy homes/land there, and eventually become the majority, what's wrong with that?

They're not disenfranchising, dispossessing, or expelling any of the whites. So why is it wrong for Jews to do that in Brooklyn NY, USA or parts of Israel (where they were the majority in 1948 at the time of the partition plan). Even if Jews are the majority in Brooklyn, what does that matter? Maybe a Jew becomes mayor but what's the threat? Same for parts of Israel, Realize there are about 2 MILLION Jews in metropolitan NYC now. Who are they threatening?

:shrug:

As for people being unable to "defend" themselves, what would native Arabs be defending? Jews weren't coming to attack, expel, disposess, or disenfranchise them. If they "feared" the Jews, the OTTOMAN empire was still in charge when Zionism started and could "defend" the natives easily from the Jews.

1. I'm assuming you agree it's ridiculous to accuse early Zionists of plotting to engage and ultimately drive out the Ottoman Turks from Israel.
2. I'm also assuming you agree that there was nothing particularly unjust about the partition plan.

As to your last question, the problem wasn't Jewish immigration during Ottoman rule but afterwards, right? During Ottoman rule, the Turks controlled Jewish immigration. Afterwards, Israel was already declared a Jewish homeland by the League of Nations (at the same time a Palestinian majority in Jordan was rewarded with Hashemite rule). You're asking if the natives within a Jewish homeland were just as leery of allowing mass immigration as any other nation in the world at that time. The situations are different, aren't they? Israel was already declared the Jewish homeland, those other countries worldwide were not. I'm betting if polled, MOST Palestinians within Israel pre-1948 would have been FOR allowing Jews in from Poland, Germany, etc... knowing what Jews were facing there and having nowhere else to go. Only a loud minority of hostile extremists led by the Nazi Al-Hussayni would have been against that. Agree or disagree?

[shira]

70. In addition,Arab immigration from neighboring states was greater than Jewish immigration into Israel

...during that time period.

1. For some reason, I doubt you believe they were viewed by the Arab natives as foreign invaders whose immigration numbers had to be limited like Jews.

2. There was no "Zionist" plan to limit such immigration. No concern about it at all.

[kayecy]

71. ".....the non-Jewish population of Palestine - are emphatically against the entire Zionist program."

When minorities move into "WHITE" neighborhoods, buy homes/land there, and eventually become the majority, what's wrong with that? They're not disenfranchising, dispossessing, or expelling any of the whites. So why is it wrong for Jews to do that in Brooklyn NY, USA

It isn't wrong of Jews or anyone else to do that in Brooklyn......It only becomes wrong (and starts conflicts) if those immigrants plan to declare UDI....Neither Americans, Palestinians nor anyone else would accept immigrants declaring an Independent Sovereign state....

Even if Jews are the majority in Brooklyn, what does that matter? Maybe a Jew becomes mayor but what's the threat? Who are they threatening?

As far as I know they are not threatening anyone........but, neither are they planning to declare UDI!.....Can't you see the difference planning UDI makes?....

Afterwards, Israel was already declared a Jewish homeland by the League of Nations

I guess that answers my question......You are more interested in the legality of Zionism that its moral values.... You seem to have missed the fact that the League was merely a tool of the British & French to further their colonial designs, that the USA declined to have anything to do with it.....Moreover you seem ignorant that many legal experts consider the British Palestine Mandate contravened Article 22 of the League's own Covenant.....You seem to believe that hiding behind the discredited League of Nations absolves Zionism of its moral responsibilities?

I'm betting if polled, MOST Palestinians within Israel pre-1948 would have been FOR allowing Jews in from Poland, Germany, etc... knowing what Jews were facing there and having nowhere else to go. Only a loud minority of hostile extremists led by the Nazi Al-Hussayni would have been against that. Agree or disagree?

I prefer historical facts to betting:
"In his address of July 4, 1918, President Wilson laid down the following principle as one of the four great "ends for which the associated peoples of the world were fighting"; "The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery." If that principle is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine's population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine-nearly nine tenths of the whole-are emphatically against the entire Zionist program. The tables show that there was no one thing upon which the population of Palestine were more agreed than upon this. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted, and of the people's rights, though it kept within the forms of law."

See Recommendations, Para E(3), The US King-Crane Commission Report, 1919.


How much did you bet Shira?....."..emphatically against" is clear enough isn't it?......I have plenty more reference showing most Palestinians rejected ANY form of Jewish immigration from 1917 onwards .......if, that is, you wish to pursue your bet.

[shira]

72. That's demonstrably false in light of Arab immigration and population shifts during Mandate times

The Arab population during Mandate times significantly increased at a rate higher than the Jewish population - in contrast to your claims that Zionists were successful in dispossessing, expelling, or disenfranchising the natives. Arabs moved to areas within Israel that had major Jewish concentrations during Mandate times (most likely for economic reasons). Whether they came via immigration from neighboring states or moved from one area of Israel to another, it's these Arabs who obviously had no problem with the Jews and the Zionists, like the Arab mayor of Haifa I quoted earlier, who like all moderate Arabs of that era were ultimately silenced by the fascist Al-Hussayni leadership (which did not - as you apparently believe - speak for all Arabs of that time period). Emir Faisal, who worked with Weizmann, was another significant Arab leader of that period who spoke for moderate Arabs in support of Zionism.

Of course, if you're thinking of the Arabs of that time period who, under Al-Hussayni's direction, participated in pogroms and attacks on Jews who had been in that area for centuries - then you're referring to antisemites who had problems with Jews, not just Zionists.

[kayecy]

80. Thus over this period, the Jewish population grew by 373% whilst the non-jewish grew by 52%....

The Arab population during Mandate times significantly increased at a rate higher than the Jewish population.

1922 Jewish population= 83,790 Non-Jewish population= 668,258
1937 Jewish population=395,836 Non-Jewish population=1,005,958
See A. Gertz, statistical handbook of Jewish Palestine, 1947

Thus over this period, the Jewish population grew by 373% whilst the non-Jewish grew by 52%....Please check your facts before you make such a ridiculous statements.

That's (ie the King-Crane Commission's findings) demonstrably false in light of Arab immigration and population shifts during Mandate times

Don't you think your "demonstrably false" claim requires support?.....This is not a "Whatever-Shira-says-is-fact" discussion you know!

Here is another official document to show that the vast majority of Palestinian natives rejected Jewish immigration:
"The underlying causes of the disturbances of 1936 were--
(1) The desire of the Arabs for national independence;
(2) Their hatred and fear of the establishment of the Jewish National Home."
See Chapter 5, The Peel Commission, July 1937



Can we now agree:
1. That the Zionists planned massive immigration into Palestine in spite of the wishes of the natives.
2. That the natives had as much right to resist mass Jewish immigration as any other people would have resisted it. (You remember how the US treated the S.S. St. Louis?)

[oberliner]

81. Jeez I wonder what was going on in the 1930s that would have caused so many Jews to emigrate?

Curious to know your thoughts on what the Jews who were prescient enough to realize that very bad things were about to go down for them in Europe ought to have done in light of the fact that, as you point out, the US and others were not particularly receptive to their arrival.

Do you see a way that those folks could have escaped the impending Holocaust without inconveniencing anyone in any other country?

[kayecy]

82. Oberliner -Anyone in the same position as the Jews would have done exactly the same.........

Curious to know your thoughts on what the Jews who were prescient enough to realize that very bad things were about to go down for them in Europe ought to have done in light of the fact that, as you point out, the US and others were not particularly receptive to their arrival.

Anyone in the same position as the Jews would have done exactly the same.........The US, Britain, Argentina etc behaved disgustingly when the plight of the Jews was obvious to all......My point is that the Palestinian Arabs were completely innocent in this matter.....They got lumbered with taking in the Jews because, unlike the others, they had no navy or military to drive the Jews away.

If you can agree with that statement, then you have to ask yourself who is responsible for the conflict?.....Blame the Soviets, Poles etc for driving out the Jews....Blame the US etc for not giving them sanctuary......What you can't do is blame the Palestinians when they were doing no more than far more developed peoples were doing at the time.

My criticism of Israelis is that they don't seem to understand that they, along with the rest of the world, owe Palestinians, at least and apology for depriving them of their right to self determination...

There is also some evidence that Zionists leaders were not primarily concerned with saving Jewish lives.....They failed to pursue many opportunities to save Jewish lives by getting them VISAs to the US simply because Jews going to the US were Jews not going to build up a critical mass in Palestine.

[shira]

92. Kayecy, you accuse Israelis of depriving Palestinians the right to self-determination.

That's silly.

The 1948 partition plan would have granted Palestinians their own state.

Jews accepted it. Arab leadership rejected it.

[shira]

83. Your population figures run until 1937 (before the White Paper)

When Jewish immigration grinded nearly to a halt and Arab immigration from other areas into Israel increased rapidly.

WHY aren't you bringing up native Arab resistance to massive Arab immigration prior to 1948? They were coming because of the Jewish economic benefits, weren't they? So by 1948, a very large number of Arabs were in the area of Israel precisely because of economic opportunity created by Jews, right?

But you'll argue those Arabs of 1948 (all "authentic" Palestinians, even the newest Arab immigrants) were against more Jews being there?

:shrug:

Seems a very large number were coming to Israel or migrating towards jobs there precisely because of the Jews. They wouldn't have come if it weren't for the Jews.

But I'll grant you that many Arabs of that area (like Hitler's friend the Mufti) were as antisemitic as others around the world, not wanting any Jews coming there. I'm not sure why you think their opinion matters much. Like everyone else around the world limiting Jews looking for refuge during Holocaust times, they were all moral perverts.

And as Oberliner brought up, why were mass numbers of Jews coming to Israel in the 1930's? Was their goal to be colonialists or find safe refuge in what was already declared the Jewish homeland? I want to see you try claiming most of those "Zionists" had evil or racist intent.

[kayecy]

84. Shira - 'Perverts' is rather strong, but in principle I don't disagree with you....

WHY aren't you bringing up native Arab resistance to massive Arab immigration prior to 1948?

Except for the discredited Ms Peters, I haven't seen any figures for such immigrations.....You obviously believe there was 'massive immigration' of Arabs.......What do you base your belief on?

Like everyone else around the world limiting Jews looking for refuge during Holocaust times, they were all moral perverts

'Perverts' is rather strong, but in principle I don't disagree with you......What I don't understand is why you are so anti-Palestinian when the Palestinians had a much greater reason to fear Jewish immigration and must therefore be less 'perverted' than the US, Argentina etc?


You haven't yet said whether we can agree on the following:
1. That the Zionists planned massive immigration into Palestine in spite of the wishes of the natives.
2. That the natives had as much right to resist mass Jewish immigration as any other people would have resisted it. (You remember how the US treated the S.S. St. Louis?)

[shira]

85. To answer your questions...

1. That the Zionists planned massive immigration into Palestine in spite of the wishes of the natives.

Yes, the Zionists planned massive immigration into Palestine. Why? Because of evil, colonialist, racist reasons? No. In spite of the wishes of Arab natives? Yes, some but certainly not all.

2. That the natives had as much right to resist mass Jewish immigration as any other people would have resisted it. (You remember how the US treated the S.S. St. Louis?)

Antisemites have no right to hate and attack Jews for no other reason than that they're Jews. If Jews were really there with evil intent to be racist and colonialist, disposess, disenfranchise, and expel Arabs that's one thing. But they weren't, were they? So no, there was no great reason to "resist" and go to war against the Jews.

But I suppose Arabs had every right to be as antisemitic as any other people around the globe at that time. Does that answer your question?

[kayecy]

86. Shira - Thank you for agreeing with me on this one......We are making progress at last!

1. That the Zionists planned massive immigration into Palestine in spite of the wishes of the natives.
Yes, the Zionists planned massive immigration into Palestine. Why? Because of evil, colonialist, racist reasons? No. In spite of the wishes of Arab natives? Yes, some but certainly not all.

Thank you Shira, for agreeing with me on this one......We are making progress at last!

2. That the natives had as much right to resist mass Jewish immigration as any other people would have resisted it. (You remember how the US treated the S.S. St. Louis?)
Antisemites have no right to hate and attack Jews for no other reason than that they're Jews. If Jews were really there with evil intent to be racist and colonialist, disposess, disenfranchise, and expel Arabs that's one thing. But they weren't, were they? So no, there was no great reason to "resist" and go to war against the Jews.

Lets take your answer bit-by-bit:

Antisemites have no right to hate and attack Jews for no other reason than that they're Jews.....

I am in complete agreement with you.

If Jews were really there with evil intent ........ disposess, disenfranchise, and expel Arabs that's one thing........

Didn't the Zionists buy farmed land from absentee landlords and then kick the Palestinians peasants off it?......Isn't that disposessing them?
Didn't the Zionists have every intention to become the majority.....Isn't that disenfranchisement of the natives?

So no,there was no great reason to "resist" and go to war against the Jews......

So if we take a modern day analogous situation:.....Suppose, tired of being refugees, 100,000 Palestinians managed to enter Israel today and turned up to claim their villages......According to your logic, there would be no great reason for the IDF to go to 'war' against the Arabs and expel them from Israel?.

[shira]

87. To answer your last question...

"So if we take a modern day analogous situation:.....Suppose, tired of being refugees, 100,000 Palestinians managed to enter Israel today and turned up to claim their villages......According to your logic, there would be no great reason for the IDF to go to 'war' against the Arabs and expel them from Israel?."

That's not a good comparison, is it? Israel was already declared a Jewish homeland. There was no sovereign Palestine. It was only a part of the Ottoman Empire and then British Mandate.

Let's make this realistic.

If 250,000 Palestinian refugees legally immigrated into Israel, bought property and homes, sent some poor Jews off their recently purchased property, I can't imagine a significant amount of Israelis having any issue with this. Would you expect Jews to "resist" these Palestinians, assign some motivation to them (as though these refugees wish to take over the country by majority) and rightfully pick a fight with them?

[kayecy]

90. Shira - 1920s Palestinians never had a choice as to whether Zionist immigration was legal or not..

That's not a good comparison, is it? Israel was already declared a Jewish homeland. There was no sovereign Palestine. It was only a part of the Ottoman Empire and then British Mandate.

I wondered whether you could resist playing the 'no sovereign Palestine' card.......When Zionists stoop to that it indicates their lack of moral values......They (and you) prefer to hide behind dubious legality rather than relying on western moral values....We are discussing two peoples here.....Jewish and Palestinian.....The Jews (with the help of the US) were able to persuade the UN to approve their border-less state.....the Palestinians, controlled by first the British, then the Jordanians and now Israel were not......Does that mean we have to use different moral values for the two peoples?

If 250,000 Palestinian refugees legally immigrated into Israel, bought property and homes, sent some poor Jews off their recently purchased property, I can't imagine a significant amount of Israelis having any issue with this.

And you think the Israeli government would ever in a million years chose to make that legal?........The 1920 Palestinians were never given a choice as to whether Zionist immigration was legal or not.

Would you expect Jews to "resist" these Palestinians, assign some motivation to them (as though these refugees wish to take over the country by majority) and rightfully pick a fight with them?

Don't be ridiculous Shira, your analogy is never going to happen because Israel will not allow it.

The 1920 Palestinians resisted Zionist immigration because they feared they would be swamped by them.......The Israeli government stops Palestinians returning to their villages for the same reason.....The difference is that the 1920s Palestinians were peasants without allies or an army, whereas the GOI is a Government with allies and an army.......Where is your sense of moral equivalence?

[shira]

91. So honestly, let's get to the chase...what did the Palestinians of that era really have to fear?

There was no significant program ever planned or implemented to expel, disenfranchise, or disposess the natives so rumors of all that were bullshit and nothing but an excuse for intolerance and hatred. Jews coming to Israel went there as refugee victims seeking safe asylum. They bought land and homes legally, just as the 2 million Jews of the greater NYC area have done. There was no evil, racist plan to kick Palestinians out or limit Arab immigration during that time - no more than there is some nefarious plan in place right now for NYC Jews to kick out or disenfranchise the non-Jews from NYC - nevermind claims by bigots like the KKK's David Duke that Jews run the NYT, there's a Jewish Mayor of NYC, and that NYC is occupied by Jews. I'm pretty sure there are at least a couple Jews in the NYC area over the past 60 years who wronged some non-Jews but that doesn't prove some grand evil, racist conspiracy anymore than in Israel 60-80 years ago by the Jews back then. The Nazi Mufti Al-Hussayni's narrative about the Jews back then (being evil, racist colonialists) is no more credible than David Duke's similar rantings now.

Without the wars of 1948 (civil as well as a united Arab assault) the Palestinians would still be the majority in that area, more Arabs would keep immigrating in for economic reasons, and the Jews at best would have only the land assigned to them via the Partition plan (in which no Palestinians would have been forced to move).

Be honest.

What is unjust about that?

======

In addition, you keep bringing up 2 peoples here, both Jews and Palestinians. But before 1948 Jews of that area were every bit as Palestinian as any Arab. Yassir Arafat was born in Egypt so Ariel Sharon who was born before 1948 in Palestine was more Palestinian than Arafat. However, the UN ruled that any Arab who had lived in that area for more than 2 years (since 1946) counted as Palestinian. No, it wasn't so much a conflict between Jews and Palestinians as it was Jews and Arabs back then.

[kayecy]

93. Shira - But then the Zionists engineered a majority and declared UDI......

There was no significant program ever planned or implemented to expel, disenfranchise, or disposess the natives so rumors of all that were bullshit and nothing but an excuse for intolerance and hatred.

Not true:
1. The Zionists bought farmed land from absentee landlords and then kick the Palestinians peasants off it......Isn't that dispossessing them?
2. The Zionists had every intention to become the majority (You have admitted that yourself).....Isn't that disenfranchisement of the natives?

Without the wars of 1948 (civil as well as a united Arab assault) the Palestinians would still be the majority in that are......What is unjust about that?

True......But then the Zionists engineered a majority by carving out a chunk of Palestine and declaring UDI......What was just or moral in that?.......Do you know of any other situation where recent immigrants have carved up a territory and declared UDI?

In addition, you keep bringing up 2 peoples here, both Jews and Palestinians. But before 1948 Jews of that area were every bit as Palestinian as any Arab.

Sharon was born in Kfar Malal, in 1928 to a family of Lithuanian Jews who had arrived in Mandate Palestine a few years earlier....Remember the figures I produced for you?
1922 Jewish population= 83,790 Non-Jewish population= 668,258
1937 Jewish population=395,836 Non-Jewish population=1,005,958
So Sharon's parents were some of the 300,000 Zionists that arrived after 1920......Does that make either them or him "every bit as Palestinian as any Arab"?

As you said before, quoting extremists like al-Husayni and Arafat is as relevant as quoting Feiglin and Lieberman......They are all extremists but both al-Hussayni and Arafat's parents & grandparents were born in Palestine which is more than can be said of Lieberman or Sharon.

[shira]

94. They engineered a majority in certain parts partitioned to them by the UN...

Palestinians still outnumbered Jews 2 to 1 at the time, and there was no chance Jews were going to become a majority without the 1948 wars that the Arabs initiated.

1. The Zionists bought farmed land from absentee landlords and then kick the Palestinians peasants off it......Isn't that dispossessing them?
2. The Zionists had every intention to become the majority (You have admitted that yourself).....Isn't that disenfranchisement of the natives?

You're still pointing to a few examples in order to make false, sweeping generalizations for most Zionists of that era, as though it were policy or a grand conspiracy - and that's the exact same shit Nazis and KKK members like Al Hussayni and David Duke do.

You still haven't explained what was immoral about the partition plan.

Sharon was born in Palestine, so yes, that makes him MORE Palestinian than Arafat.

[kayecy]

95. Shira - Is that what you refer to as "...still pointing to a few examples"?....

1. The Zionists bought farmed land from absentee landlords and then kick the Palestinians peasants off it......Isn't that dispossessing them?
2. The Zionists had every intention to become the majority (You have admitted that yourself).....Isn't that disenfranchisement of the natives?
You're still pointing to a few examples in order to make false, sweeping generalizations for most Zionists of that era, as though it were policy or a grand conspiracy - and that's the exact same shit Nazis and KKK members like Al Hussayni and David Duke do.

I will ignore your Nazi insinuations Shira, but please do try to produce a few facts to support your beliefs.....Without historical references you are merely giving us your personal (apparently ill-informed) views......I have produced several official references to the landless state of the peasants as a result of the Zionist purchases and all you do is close your eyes to the facts.

As for disenfranchisement, you have admitted yourself the Zionists were hoping to achieve a majority......Is that what you refer to as "...still pointing to a few examples"?

You still haven't explained what was immoral about the partition plan.

I have no objection to any partition plan....so long as it is supported by a majority of the people so affected.....Was the 1947 UN Partition Plan supported by the majority of Palestine residents?.......Of course it wasn't and we should therefore not be surprised at the resulting violence.


As I said, if Brooklyn Jews decided to declare UDI, do you think there would be no resistance from non-Jewish US citizens who are in the majority, just like the Palestinians were in the majority in 1947?



You have yet to give me an example of any other situation where recent immigrants have carved up a territory and declared UDI.

[shira]

96. Yes, making a mountain out of a molehill...

1. Pointing to a few examples and making sweeping generalizations:

"In 1936, a commission of inquiry found that 654 Palestinian families had lost their lands as the result of Zionist purchases, out of a total of 61,408 Arab families that owned or tenanted land. In other words, slightly over 1%. These families lost 46,633 dunams of land, which is less than 1% of the 6,440,000 dunams of land in Palestine that were deemed to be arable.4 That was the extent of the dispossession."

4. Michael Har-Segor and Maurice Stroun, Israel/Palestine:L'Histoire au dela des Mythes, Editions Metropolis, Paris, 1996. Translated into Hebrew as Yisrael/Falastin, Hametziut Sheme'ever Lamitosim - Masah, The Jewish-Arab Peace Center, Givat Haviva, 1977 , page 225 of the Hebrew edition.
http://www.zionism-israel.com/impact_of_zionism.htm

2. While the Zionists hoped for a majority, what dastardly, evil, racist plans did they attempt in order to achieve that plan prior to 1948? They couldn't force Jews worldwide to come to Israel. They didn't force Arabs out of Israel either. The 1948 war that Arabs declared on Jews was the primary cause, and therefore the fault of Arab leadership.

3. Brooklyn Jews declaring UDI in a sovereign nation is different than what the Jews did in 1948. Now let's suppose there wasn't any massive immigration and the number of Jews remained around 100-200 thousand until 1948. Would it have still been wrong, in your view, for that tiny minority of AUTHENTIC Palestinian Jews to declare statehood? Let's not pretend there was no Jewish presence at all in Palestine before the Mandate era and that the Jews were just recent immigrants. Jews were a majority in the Jerusalem area going back to the mid to late 19th century. I suspect using your standards that if Arabs declared UDI, that would have disenfranchised the majority of Jews in the Jerusalem area - right?

[kayecy]

97. Shira - At last you are producing references that I have not seen!.......

At last you are producing references that I have not seen!

In 1936, a commission of inquiry found that 654 Palestinian families had lost their lands as the result of Zionist purchases, out of a total of 61,408 Arab families that owned or tenanted land.

Now which 1936 Commission of Inquiry would your Zionist site be referring too?......The only one I know of is the Peel Commission which contains no such reference!.....You can check it for yourself at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/peel1.html

I have tried to check your reference by googling for <"L'Histoire au dela des Mythes" "654">....The search produces only one result.... your Zionist site! .....Can you think of an explanation why that should be?.....I am genuinely interested in checking the authenticity of your reference but not having access to the original makes this impossible.

While the Zionists hoped for a majority, what dastardly, evil, racist plans did they attempt in order to achieve that plan prior to 1948?

Mass immigration.....

Brooklyn Jews declaring UDI in a sovereign nation is different than what the Jews did in 1948.

Ah, of course....The 'no sovereign Palestine' card again!....The excuse of every immoral, dishonest Zionist!

Now let's suppose there wasn't any massive immigration and the number of Jews remained around 100-200 thousand until 1948. Would it have still been wrong, in your view, for that tiny minority of AUTHENTIC Palestinian Jews to declare statehood?

As I have said before, I have no objection to partition providing the native people affected are consulted and agree to it....If there is no agreement, violence is almost enevitable....eg Yugoslavia/Croatia, China/Taiwan, Georgia/Abkhazia etc.


Now, have you had time to think of a similar situation where recent immigrants have carved up a territory and declared UDI?.....Frankly I don't think such a UDI has ever been attempted except by the Zionists.......UDI can cause violence......UDI by powerful immigrants is a guarantee of eternal conflict!

[shira]

98. Those numbers appear to be based on Sir John Hope Simpson's findings...

I haven't yet found another source for the 1% claims, but I did find something about the claim that the total number of Arab families owning land there was 61,480. Here's one of those sources, this one being a 1931 demolition of Simpson's findings...
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/The_Statistical_Bases_of_Sir_John_Hope's_Report_on_Immigration,_Land_Settlement_and_Development_in_Palestine,_Jewish_Agency,_1931.

======================


A few facts/questions for you:

1. The Palestinian population doubled during the Mandate period from 1922 to 1948 (from ~600,000 to ~1.2 million).

Arabs weren't being displaced, now were they?

====

2. Quality of life for Palestinians significantly increased during Mandate rule (economy, health, literacy, etc). In fact, according to Benny Morris: "In 1922, there were 22,000 dunams of Arab land producing citrus crops. In 1940, there were 140,000 dunams of Arab citrus land, mostly producing crop for export in Palestine. In 1931 Arabs had 332,000 dunams of olive groves and apple orchards. By 1942 they had 832,000 dunams under cultivation."

So much for claims of dispossession, right?

====

3. The Brits reported in 1930 to the League of Nations that the Arabs had refused every opportunity given them to participate in the government of Palestine:

"On the 1st September, 1922, the Palestine Order in Council was issued, setting up a Government in Palestine under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. Part 3 of the Order in Council directed the establishment of a Legislative Council to be composed of the High Commissioner as President, with 10 other official members, and 12 elected non-official members. The procedure for the selection of the non-official members was laid down in the Legislative Council Order in Council, 1922, and in February and March, 1923, an attempt was made to hold elections in accordance with that procedure.

"The attempt failed owing to the refusal of the Arab population as a whole to co-operate (a detailed report of these elections is contained in the papers relating to the elections for the Palestine Legislative Council, 1923, published as Command Paper 1889).

"The High Commissioner thereupon suspended the establishment of the proposed Legislative Council, and continued to act in consultation with an Advisory Council as before.

"Two further opportunities were given to representative Arab leaders in Palestine to co-operate with the Administration in the government of the country, first, by the reconstitution of a nominated Advisory Council, but with membership conforming to that proposed for the Legislative Council, and, secondly, by a proposal for the formation of an Arab Agency. It was intended that this Agency should have functions analogous to those entrusted to the Jewish Agency by Article 4 of the Palestine Mandate.

"Neither of these opportunities was accepted and, accordingly, in December, 1923, an Advisory Council was set up consisting only of official members. This position still continues; the only change being that the Advisory Council has been enlarged by the addition of more official members as the Administration developed.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/c2feff7b90a24815052565e6004e5630?OpenDocument

So much for your claims of disenfranchisement, right?

=========

4. Lastly, you say my responses are nothing but excuses used by immoral, dishonest Zionists. Project much? Although you say you can't blame Jews for trying to escape Nazi Germany, you defend fascists like the Mufti Al-Hussayni denying evil, racist and colonialist "Zionist" Jews entry into Palestine (based on demonstrably false claims of disposession, disenfranchisement, and displacement). It doesn't get more immoral and dishonest than that.

[kayecy]

100. Shira - Either show me where I defend fascists or have the decency to apologize..

Those numbers appear to be based on Sir John Hope Simpson's findings...I haven't yet found another source for the 1% claims,

I don't think so.....Hope Simpson's report was in 1930 not 1936 and the copy I have dug up does not seem to mention 654 or 61,408..Can you give me the exact reference please?

1. The Palestinian population doubled during the Mandate period from 1922 to 1948 (from ~600,000 to ~1.2 million). ....Arabs weren't being displaced, now were they?

I never claimed they were being 'displaced'......I said they were being 'dispossessed'.

2. Quality of life for Palestinians significantly increased during Mandate rule (economy, health, literacy, etc). In fact, according to Benny Morris: "In 1922, there were 22,000 dunams of Arab land producing citrus crops. In 1940, there were 140,000 dunams of Arab citrus land, mostly producing crop for export in Palestine. In 1931 Arabs had 332,000 dunams of olive groves and apple orchards. By 1942 they had 832,000 dunams under cultivation." .....So much for claims of dispossession, right?

Where does Morris say there was no disposession?..........The Hope Simpson Report gives an example of what happened when 688 Arab families were evicted from village land in the Esdraelon valley.....309 became landless-peasants and in addition, the knock-on effect resulted in more than 4,900 people losing some or all of their livelihood due to the evictions......If that is not dispossession, what is it?

.....you defend fascists like the Mufti Al-Hussayni......It doesn't get more immoral and dishonest than that

I did no such thing.......Either show me where I did, or have the decency to apologize for that slur on my integrity.

[shira]

102. You wrote that my responses were nothing but excuses used by dishonest, immoral Zionists....

You don't believe that was a slur on my integrity and worthy of apology?

You believe it was wrong for Jews to immigrate during the 1930's in mass numbers to Palestine, just as Al Hussayni did. In fact, you believe as Hussayni did that Zionists coming over had the worst of intentions for the indigenous Arab population and that Palestinians were innocent and justified in resisting these Jews. Am I wrong about you?

If so, then answer this:

If you were in charge instead of Al Hussayni would you have strongly "resisted" all the colonialist Zionists coming in to rob, dispossess, and disenfranchise the indigenous population? Or would you have insisted that hundreds of thousands of MORE Jews come to Palestine to be saved from antisemitic Europe? You have a choice now, either to save hundreds of thousands of innocents from Nazi fascism or assign them to their deaths by turning these "colonialist robbers" away. For the record, what would you have done? I await your response.

==============

"In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness and eventually offered new plots to any Arabs who had been "dispossessed." British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government's legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer."

Avneri, pp. 149-158; Cohen, p. 37; based on the Report on Agricultural Development and Land Settlement in Palestine by Lewis French, (December 1931, Supplementary; Report, April 1932) and material submitted to the Palestine Royal Commission.

Now do the math. About 600 dispossessed families out of 61,408 is roughly 1%.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Hope_Simpson.html

That link to the Hope-Simpson report repeats the claim of 61,408 families from the French/Jewish source. Putting the Lewis French survey results together with Hope-Simpson gives us roughly 1%.


==============


Your claims of dispossession and disenfranchisement have now been proven false. While some Arab families were dispossessed in some land deals, that's a FAR CRY from insisting Zionists were intent on dispossessing the Arabs from the very start, or that that was the policy of the Zionist movement. Generally speaking Zionism resulted in Arab families coming into possession of more agricultural land during Mandate times than what an increase in their numbers would suggest. While the Arab population doubled during Mandate times, Arab families came into possession of more than twice the amount of land they were tending in 1922. Thus, your claims of Zionism resulting in significant Arab dispossession are false (it was the opposite actually).

I note you didn't comment at all on the fact you were proven wrong WRT disenfranchisement (when the indigenous Arab Palestinians refused to be represented in government during the Mandate era).


==============


Lastly, in a response to Obeliner above, you say Israelis owe the indigenous of Palestine an apology for depriving them of self-determination. I called you on that claim above and you didn't respond. How can you say Zionists or Israelis deprived Palestinians of self-determination given that at every opportunity, Palestinian leadership turned down each offer?

[kayecy]

104. Shira - Stopping Zionist immigration was the only thing that mattered to the natives

I note you didn't comment at all on the fact you were proven wrong WRT disenfranchisement (when the indigenous Arab Palestinians refused to be represented in government during the Mandate era).

Palestinians have never been offered membership of a council,executive or parliament that had the power to stop Zionist immigration.....Stopping Zionist immigration was the only thing that mattered to them....If they couldn't stop it democratically, any other offer of democracy was meaningless.

You have a choice now, either to save hundreds of thousands of innocents from Nazi fascism or assign them to their deaths by turning these "colonialist robbers" away. For the record, what would you have done? I await your response.

The US government chose to turn away innocent Jews didn’t it?.....What did Al Hussayni do that was worse than Roosevelt?.....The US claimed to have moral values, was far richer and had far more space than Palestine and yet you choose to castigate Al Hussayni rather than Roosevelt.....Why?

Just think how many lives (Jews and Arabs) would have been saved if Congress had thrown open the doors to Jewish immigration in the 20s and 30s!....It would have been a win-win for everyone......I cannot understand why you think Palestinians had a greater responsibility than the US to take in Jewish refugees.....



To date, you have implied that I am an “Israel-hater”, “Warmonger”, likened me to David Duke, likened me to the KKK and now you have accused me of defending fascists....I have asked you to provide evidence to support your accusations......

You seem to think your little quiz above is sufficient evidence.......It is not, and you know it.......

I asked you to either show me where I defended fascists or to apologize.......I am still waiting.



As to your claim that you are similarly due an apology, just ask yourself honestly if my statement was true:.....Anyone using the sovereignty excuse is certainly being immoral ......How can any honest person think one group (Israelis) had a right to stop immigrants ( actually returning residents) entering Israel, but another group (Palestinian Arabs) had no such right to stop immigrants (aliens) entering Palestine?......Does statehood change moral values?

If I have misunderstood you I will apologize......

[shira]

105. Stopping Jews escaping the firing range, gallows, and gas chambers was morally indefensible...

...whether it was the USA or Palestine, and there's no excuse for it either way. Two wrongs don't make a right. And Al-Hussayni had no business declaring war on the Jews based on demonstrably false accusations of displacement, dispossession, and disenfranchisement. As I've proven conclusively, during the Mandate period the Arab population more than doubled, they owned more than twice the amount of land they had at the beginning, and they decided to have no part in the government. Al Hussayni and his cronies, like Hitler, made up excuses for their antisemitism.

And using the sovereignty argument is not an excuse for which any apology is due. Given that the Zionists weren't the evil, racist colonialists you made them out to be, their immigration to Israel due ENTIRELY to seeking refuge was entirely just and moral. Were there examples of some bad things that happened to some of the native Arabs? Of course, but that's a far cry from saying Al Hussayni and his cronies were all correct about Zionists having evil intent from the very start, or that it was Zionist policy to do bad things generally to the native Arabs.

Why is there a need to apologize? Palestinians had the chance to participate in a representative democracy rather than settle for another failed state like all other regimes surrounding Israel. Al Hussayni and his gang chose fascism along with its hatred, intolerance, and war - the opposite of democracy, tolerance, and basic individual human rights. There's nothing for Zionists to apologize for, as it's quite clear they couldn't work cooperatively with people who shared Hitler's ambitions WRT Jews.

You made the claim earlier that Palestinians were totally innocent and defenseless victims during the Mandate period. Do you honestly believe this applies to Al Hussayni and his followers?

[kayecy]

106. Shira - In what way was Al-Hussayni worse than Roosevelt and Congress?......

Stopping Jews escaping the firing range, gallows, and gas chambers was morally indefensible...whether it was the USA or Palestine, and there's no excuse for it either way

So you agree that Palestinians had more reasons for stopping Jews escaping than the US......In that case stop claiming that the Palestinians had no right to resist Jewish immigration.....

And using the sovereignty argument is not an excuse for which any apology is due.

You are very good at making statements without support....Now justify the morality of your sovereignty excuse......

Palestinians had the chance to participate in a representative democracy.

Not true.....As I said Palestinians have never been offered membership of a council,executive or parliament that had the power to stop Zionist immigration.....Stopping Zionist immigration was the only thing that mattered to them....If they couldn't stop it democratically, any other offer of democracy was meaningless......You have yet to show me that they were offered such powers....

You made the claim earlier that Palestinians were totally innocent and defenseless victims during the Mandate period. Do you honestly believe this applies to Al Hussayni and his followers?

In what way was Al-Hussayni worse than Roosevelt and Congress?

[shira]

107. He participated with Hitler in killing Jews and defended his actions with false claims...

...that Zionists were coming to rob and disenfranchise the indigenous Arab population, thereby inciting the population to violence against innocents. That's much worse than Roosevelt.

And I don't agree that Palestinians had more reasons for stopping Jews from coming into Palestine. As the numbers show, Zionist immigration was a win-win situation for both Jews and Arabs. Participating in a representative democracy that guaranteed basic human rights for all is better than living under fascist totalitarian (sharia) rule any day. I don't see how any liberal can claim that stopping Jews from immigrating made democracy in Israel meaningless, as though living under fascist Mufti rule would have been far better. Tell me, if instead of making up 11% of the population in 1922, Jews made up 40% of the total population, would more Jewish immigration have been justified? What if Jews made up 60% of the population in Israel in 1922? Would adding more Jews in hopes of achieving a greater majority have also been wrong? At what point would mass Zionist immigration have been justified, in your view?

BTW, with regard to the morality of Jewish sovereignty none other than Emir Faisal stated...

"The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement....We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home....We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is nationalist and not imperialist. And there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other."

Lastly, why did Zionist immigration matter to Palestinians like Al Hussayni? And please don't use mendacious propaganda that he concocted as an excuse to attack Jews, okay?

[kayecy]

108. Shira - Congress's actions probably condemned hundreds of thousands of Jews to Hitler's death camps.

He participated with Hitler in killing Jews and defended his actions with false claims......that Zionists were coming to rob and disenfranchise the indigenous Arab population, thereby inciting the population to violence against innocents. That's much worse than Roosevelt

Congress's actions probably condemned hundreds of thousands of Jews to Hitler's death camps......
How many Jews did Al-Hussayni kill?.....It seems that if we could turn the clock back on history, I would opt for an action which resulted in as few Jews as possible being killed whereas you would opt for Britain allowing as many Jews as possible into Palestine...ie little more than what actually happened which, as we know, resulted in thousands being left to Hitler's death camps.....

And I don't agree that Palestinians had more reasons for stopping Jews from coming into Palestine. As the numbers show, Zionist immigration was a win-win situation for both Jews and Arabs.

Zionist immigration resulted in several revolts, six major wars, thousands killed and you call that a win-win?.......

Just compare that with my alternative.....If Congress had opened the doors to US immigration, thousands of Jews and Arabs lives would have been saved, the US would have become richer through Jewish industry, in fact, such an action would have resulted in no deaths, no disenfranchisement and no dispossession.......Sorry, I forgot....Zionists would have been made unhappy.

Participating in a representative democracy that guaranteed basic human rights for all is better than living under fascist totalitarian (sharia) rule any day.

So we both believe, and are lucky to be able to chose......The Palestinians were never offered the chance to chose.....If democracy means anything it is the power to chose who your rulers are without some Zionist or Brit telling you what is best for you.

BTW, with regard to the morality of Jewish sovereignty none other than Emir Faisal stated...

And was Faisal Palestinian?......Did he ever rule the Palestinians?.......On whose authority did he make that statement?......You forget what happened afterwards:
".... St. John Philby, a British representative in Palestine, later stated that Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca and King of Hejaz, on whose behalf Faisal was acting, had refused to recognize the agreement as soon as it was brought to his notice....."
It is always best to get the agreement of your ruler before making stupid statements......

Lastly, why did Zionist immigration matter to Palestinians like Al Hussayni?

I do not claim to be privy to Al-Hussayni's thoughts......Perhaps he didn't like the idea of Palestinians being disenfranchised and dispossessed......

[shira]

109. You're still not admitting you're wrong and you're not answering all my questions.

For example, from my last post:

Tell me, if instead of making up 11% of the population in 1922, Jews made up 40% of the total population, would more Jewish immigration have been justified? What if Jews made up 60% of the population in Israel in 1922? Would adding more Jews in hopes of achieving a greater majority have also been wrong? At what point would mass Zionist immigration have been justified, in your view?

You also claimed Zionists deprived Palestinians of self-determination. How so?

Why do you think Palestinians would have been better off minus the Zionists and under fascist Mufti rule instead?

Do you still believe Zionists seeking refuge were in reality colonialists who generally had ill intent towards Palestinians?

Why is the Mufti and his followers considered innocent and defenseless in your view?

You said earlier that Israel would never allow tens or hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to flood Israel, but Israel has offered citizenship to East Jerusalemites and the people of Ghajar (which is now being turned over to Lebanon). All those people could choose to move inside central Israel and do as Zionists did 80 years ago. You think Israel would react as violently towards them as fascists like the Mufti did?

If you were in charge instead of Al Hussayni would you have strongly "resisted" all the colonialist Zionists coming in to rob, dispossess, and disenfranchise the indigenous population? Or would you have insisted that hundreds of thousands of MORE Jews come to Palestine to be saved from antisemitic Europe? You have a choice now, either to save hundreds of thousands of innocents from Nazi fascism or assign them to their deaths by turning these "colonialist robbers" away. For the record, what would you have done? I await your response.

========

And just as you admit Jewish immigration would have resulted in making things better for the US economy, the same is true for Palestine. Rather than being dispossessed, a claim you are STILL making despite the numbers, Arab Palestinians owned more than twice the amount of land by the end of the Mandate as they did at the beginning. The economy, health, education, etc...for Palestinians were all better as a result of the Zionists, thus a win/win situation. Certainly better than life under Mufti fascist rule with sharia law, etc...

[kayecy]

110. Shira - But I'm not wrong, am I?..... You know you got your information from Zionist propaganda..

You're still not admitting you're wrong ....

But I'm not wrong, am I Shira?.....You won't admit it but you KNOW you got your information from Zionist propaganda....The sites you have chosen to consult in our little debate are hardly sources of unbiased opinion, are they?

Tell me, if instead of making up 11% of the population in 1922, Jews made up 40% of the total population, would more Jewish immigration have been justified? What if Jews made up 60% of the population in Israel in 1922? Would adding more Jews in hopes of achieving a greater majority have also been wrong? At what point would mass Zionist immigration have been justified, in your view?......

Make that 1917 and 50% Jewish (non-immigrants), and I would have no objection to Balfour and further Jewish immigration.......You still don't seem to understand that it is the majority of native residents who should decide such things....You know, just like it was a majority of Cypriots (not immigrants like me) who decided whether on not they wanted to join the EU......

And just as you admit Jewish immigration would have resulted in making things better for the US economy, the same is true for Palestine.

So?.......You don't seem to understand that the Palestinians were never offered the chance to chose.....If democracy means anything it is the power to chose who your rulers are without some Zionist or Brit telling you what is best for you......

You also claimed Zionists deprived Palestinians of self-determination. How so?

Mass immigration until alien Jews achieved a majority in someone else's land.....

Why do you think Palestinians would have been better off minus the Zionists and under fascist Mufti rule instead?

I never said I did think so......

Do you still believe Zionists seeking refuge were in reality colonialists who generally had ill intent towards Palestinians?

Some yes.......I have given you lots of evidence.....

Why is the Mufti and his followers considered innocent and defenseless in your view?

I have never stated my view of the Mufti.......You seem to know what I think but that is just you halucinating again.....

You think Israel would react as violently towards them as fascists like the Mufti did?

Did you think the IDF would ever kill as many Lebanese and Gaza civilians as they have done?

....... and you're not answering all my questions.

I'm very sorry if I have not answered all your questions Shira.......Do please ask me again anything which you think has not received my attention.....


Whilst you are thinking, perhaps you could see your way to a little reciprocity by responding to a few of my own questions:
1. Zionist immigration resulted in several revolts, six major wars, thousands killed and you call that a win-win?.......
2. Congress's actions probably condemned hundreds of thousands of Jews to Hitler's death camps......How many Jews did Al-Hussayni kill?.....
3. You are very good at making statements without support....Now justify the morality of your sovereignty excuse......?
4. I asked you to either show me where I defended fascists or to apologize........?
5. I cannot understand why you think Palestinians had a greater responsibility than the US to take in Jewish refugees.....?
6. The US claimed to have moral values, was far richer and had far more space than Palestine and yet you choose to castigate Al Hussayni rather than Roosevelt.....Why?
7. Where does Morris say there was no disposession?..........?
8. Now, have you had time to think of a similar situation where recent immigrants have carved up a territory and declared UDI?
9. The Jews (with the help of the US) were able to persuade the UN to approve their border-less state.....the Palestinians, controlled by first the British, then the Jordanians and now Israel were not......Does that mean we have to use different moral values for the two peoples?
10.You obviously believe there was 'massive immigration' of Arabs.......What do you base your belief on?
11. Don't you think your "demonstrably false" claim requires support?...
15. ...what other original sources can you quote in support of your claim that “if the Arabs hadn't declared war on Israel in 1948, not one Arab would have been displaced, dispossessed, or disenfranchised?

[shira]

111. Yes, you are wrong as the facts and numbers show...

1. By 1948, Palestinians still outnumbered Jews by 2:1 so becoming a majority wasn't happening anytime soon. Jews weren't being forced to come to Israel and Arabs weren't being kicked out or prevented from becoming citizens there.

2. As to dispossession claims, this happened to only 1% of the Arab population and by the end of the Mandate period, Arabs owned more than twice the land they owned before Jews started immigrating in big numbers. It's not that dispossession didn't happen, but you and your anti-Zionist sources made a mountain out of a molehill and completely misrepresented the situation. There was no significant threat of Arab dispossession.

3. Arabs weren't disenfranchised at all, as they had a chance to be represented in government and they rejected it. That's not the fault of Zionists, as Arabs chose fascism over democracy. The 2 choices at the time were being part of a real democracy or submitting to totalitarian fascism. There is no question as to which system was and still is better for Jews and Arabs. Don't pretend that Zionists prevented Arabs from being part of the government, working to ensure Arab rights. You keep saying that unlimited Jewish immigration was the #1 issue keeping Arabs truly disenfranchised, but had Arabs wished to join the government, they could have ensured that Jews only become majority in certain areas of Palestine, while all of Palestine remained majority Arab (through open Arab immigration from surrounding states). That was the 1947 partition plan in a nutshell.

4. The above are facts, not Zionist opinion and propaganda - as opposed to the nonsense you presented from demonstrably dishonest, anti-Zionist propaganda sites, like Zionism is colonialism, evil, racist, it disenfranchised and dispossessed a significant percentage of the Palestinian population...:eyes:

5. I don't agree that a majority of the population should have a say on anti-semitic, anti-liberal policy. With your logic, a majority of the population could decide women are 2nd class citizens and have few rights, Jews have even fewer, and gays should be hanged or shot on sight. Going with the majority in those cases is immoral, disgusting, and unjust. This position of yours is indefensible.

6. You wrote: So?.......You don't seem to understand that the Palestinians were never offered the chance to chose.....If democracy means anything it is the power to chose who your rulers are without some Zionist or Brit telling you what is best for you...... What would Palestinians have chosen? Fascism over democracy? What other real choice did they have? What kind of democratic decision is it to choose fascism, intolerance, hatred, illiberal policy....? Look around Israel and all you see is failed states, totalitarianism. Argue all you wish that Arabs have the right to choose fascism if that's what they want by majority, but there's no way to justify that to Arabs and others who'd suffer under such discrimination. At least by participating in government, Arabs had a real chance to actually become the rulers democratically. Your position is indefensible.

7. Zionists never became a majority until the wars of 1948, so you can't say they deprived Palestinians of self-determination. Each time Arab leadership rejected a 2-state deal, from the Peel Commission to Olmert's 2008 offer, it was they who deprived Palestinians of self-determination. Of course, Palestinian life under totalitarian fascist Arab control really isn't self-determination, now is it? But this is what you're apparently for. If not, what liberal alternative would you say you'd be for WRT Palestinians of the Mandate period? As I wrote previously, had Arabs participated in the government, they could have easily BECOME the leadership (not rulers, as that's not democracy but totalitarianism).

8. I still don't see how you can claim Zionism, generally speaking, was in reality a Colonialist (or evil, racist) movement given the facts in #1-3 above. Then again, it seems you've changed your opinion, now claiming only some Zionists were this way. That's like claiming the Liberal movement is bad because of the actions or beliefs of a few Liberals. Totally absurd. No movement should be judged on the beliefs or actions of a few participants. But that's what you base your beliefs on.

9. You said Palestinians were defenseless and innocent WRT the Zionist 'threat'. Who were these defenseless, innocent Palestinians if not the Mufti and his following? Eliminate all those people and who's left but Palestinians at the mercy of the Mufti and his fascist rule?

10. Your answer to my question WRT how Jews would react to Palestinian nationalism within Israel is a red herring and completely disingenuous. Defending against terror organizations dedicated to the Nazi agenda WRT Jews is nothing like what Palestinians were facing during the Mandate period WRT Jewish refugees. That's a repulsive comparison.

======

I've already answered some of your 15 questions before, but I'll take the first 3...

1. Zionist immigration resulted in several revolts, six major wars, thousands killed and you call that a win-win?.......
2. Congress's actions probably condemned hundreds of thousands of Jews to Hitler's death camps......How many Jews did Al-Hussayni kill?.....
3. You are very good at making statements without support....Now justify the morality of your sovereignty excuse......?

1. Zionist immigration didn't result in those wars and thousands killed. THAT is the result of wars against the Jews and you're defending the Mufti and those like him by denying that. It was the Mufti and those like him in latter wars vs. Israel who were and still are vicious anti-semites who need NO reasons whatsoever to explain their actions. Take away those types and who is left among the Arabs, except for victims suffering under such fascist rule - who'd choose to go to war against the Jews? Who are they, Kayecy? At best, those Arabs who bought into the Mufti's antisemitic propaganda were misled into going to war vs. the Jews, right? They certainly didn't do it for the right reasons, now did they?

2. I don't see how Congress's actions condemned more Jews to death than Al Hussayni's. Al Hussayni could have allowed just as many Jews into Israel as the USA. But worse, he actively participated in the direct murder of tens of thousands of Jews. It appears you are absolutely defending Al Hussayni and claiming what he did is not as bad as anyone else at the time. That's outrageous!

3. There's nothing more moral than a Nationalist movement for a historically persecuted people that also takes into consideration the rights of others and attempts to make what could be a sticky situation into a win-win for all concerned. Emir Faisal and the Arab Mayor of Haifa realized this, as well as all decent and moral civilized people of the time.

======

You have yet to respond to this question...

If you were in charge instead of Al Hussayni would you have strongly "resisted" all the colonialist Zionists coming in to rob, dispossess, and disenfranchise the indigenous population? Or would you have insisted that hundreds of thousands of MORE Jews come to Palestine to be saved from antisemitic Europe? You have a choice now, either to save hundreds of thousands of innocents from Nazi fascism or assign them to their deaths by turning these "colonialist robbers" away. For the record, what would you have done? I await your response.

I'm still waiting for a thorough, honest reply that one.

:)

[kayecy]

112. Shira - Methinks the lady doth complain too much......

..... you are wrong as the facts and numbers show...

You seem to be confusing ‘numbers’ with ‘verbage’....Let me make it simple:

From the historical facts available, it seems clear to me that Zionism was intrinsically an immoral movement.....
I arrive at this conclusion by asking if the following was moral:
1. Zionist leaders planned to flood Palestine with immigrants until there was a Jewish majority...ie they planned to disenfranchise the natives (You yourself have said this was your hope)
2. Some Zionists dispossessed many native Palestinian peasants....You have agreed this is also true but you dispute the size of the dispossession....I am quite happy to debate the size of the dispossession with you, but it clearly did take place and most Zionist leaders knew it was taking place and actually resisted the efforts of the Mandate Government to stop it.

The diatribe in your last message (which you laughably describe as facts and numbers) does not make Zionism moral.



Now to come to your responses to just three of my questions:

Zionist immigration didn't result in those wars and thousands killed. THAT is the result of wars against the Jews.

Lets look at the sequence of events:
1. In 1903, Zionist leaders, having decided they needed a state of their own, decided on Palestine.....To create their Jewish state they needed to flood the land with immigrants until it became as Jewish as England was English.....Clearly a Zionist decision.....
2. From WW1 onwards, the natives of Palestine were increasingly concerned that Zionism might threaten their political aspirations...This result in the 1921 revolt......Clearly an Arab decision, but not the decision that started the conflict....The conflict was inevitable once Zionists had determined on Palestine.....

But that wasn’t the only immoral decision taken by Zionists... If they were truly interested in obtaining a refuge for persecuted Jews, why did they decide to flood Palestine with immigrants rather than the USA?.....By 1903, there were already two million Jewish immigrants in the USA.....It was not until 1922 that the USA stopped immigration.

I don't see how Congress's actions condemned more Jews to death than Al Hussayni's.

How many Jews could have been saved if Congress had opened the doors to Jewish immigration in the 30s and 40s?......100,000?....1,000,0000?
How many Jews did Al-Hussayni kill or evict from Palestine?......100s?.....maybe even a few thousand?

Al Hussayni could have allowed just as many Jews into Israel as the USA. But worse, he actively participated in the direct murder of tens of thousands of Jews.

Is that Shira hallucinating again or do you have some real facts?......The USA could have taken 6 million Jews without a single American being disenfranchised or dispossessed........Palestine could not...... In any case such a rapid flood was specifically banned in Britain’s mandate ......Was Al-Hussayni behind the wording of Balfour?

But worse, he actively participated in the direct murder of tens of thousands of Jews

Now this is an interesting statement .......If, that is you have any real facts to support it....Have you?

There's nothing more moral than a Nationalist movement for a historically persecuted people that also takes into consideration the rights of others and attempts to make what could be a sticky situation into a win-win for all concerned.

Another “Shira-says-it-so it-must-be-true" response.....Verifiable facts are what we need......This little debate is about the morality of Zionism.....To show that Zionism was essentially a moral enterprise you need to show:
A) That ‘Nationalism’ is moral....
B) That the Zionist leaders ‘took into consideration the rights of others’.......
Have you managed to do that?

You have yet to respond to this question...

All in good time Shira......We need to get your existing responses clarified first......

[shira]

113. We're finished until you admit where you've been wrong and you answer all my questions. n/t

[kayecy]

114. Shira - It's your choice......Herewith some of your more blatant fabrications:........

Just a few of your more blatant fabrications:

Al Hussayni could have allowed just as many Jews into Israel as the USA

(Ha, ha...even you can't believe that)

But worse, he actively participated in the direct murder of tens of thousands of Jews

(Tens of thousands!)

The Arab population during Mandate times significantly increased at a rate higher than the Jewish population

(It did not)

Without war, not one Arab would have been forcibly removed from his/her home, disenfranchised, dispossessed, etc.

(Not one?)

Arabs weren't disenfranchised at all, as they had a chance to be represented in government and they rejected it.

(They had no chance of stopping the immigration)

Hope-Simpson report repeats the claim of 61,408 families from the French/Jewish source

(It does not)

http://cojs.org/cojswiki/The_Statistical_Bases_of_Sir_John_Hope/'s_Report_on_Immigration,_Land_Settlement_and_Development_in_Palestine,_Jewish_Agency,_1931

(No such text exists)

In 1936, a commission of inquiry found that 654 Palestinian families had lost their lands as the result of Zionist purchases, out of a total of 61,408 Arab families that owned or tenanted land.

(No such 1936 document exists)

[oberliner]

115. You are wrong to say "no such 1936 document exists" - clearly this is the Peel Commission Report

Though you may dispute the Peel Commission's findings, you are no doubt aware of the existence of such a document.

Is it fair to assume that you have not read the entire report?

Your claim that "The Statistical Bases of Sir John Hope's Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development in Palestine, Jewish Agency, 1931." doesn't exist is also false.

That document can be found here:

http://cojs.org/cojswiki/British_Limits_on_Immigration

[oberliner]

116. Also - the Hope-Simpson report does specifically use the 61,408 figure

So your final three statements are all demonstrably incorrect.

[kayecy]

118. Oberliner - I look forward to you demonstrating that I was incorrect .......

Oberliner, you said:
You are wrong to say "no such 1936 document exists" - clearly this is the Peel Commission Report
Shira’s reference claimed that:

.."In 1936, a commission of inquiry found that 654 Palestinian families had lost their lands as the result of Zionist purchases, out of a total of 61,408 Arab families that owned or tenanted land.

Shira’s commission of inquiry could not have referred to the Peel Commission because there are no such figures in the Peel report – Correct me if I am wrong.


You also said:
...the Hope-Simpson report does specifically use the 61,408 figure.
Shira's original reference was:

.."In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness and eventually offered new plots to any Arabs who had been "dispossessed." British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government's legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer."
Avneri, pp. 149-158; Cohen, p. 37; based on the Report on Agricultural Development and Land Settlement in Palestine by Lewis French, (December 1931, Supplementary; Report, April 1932) and material submitted to the Palestine Royal Commission.

In neither the original Lewis French document (57pages) or the Supplement (27pages) have I been able to find any figures which support Avneri’s claim....Perhaps you can help?


You also said:
So your final three statements are all demonstrably incorrect.
That is rather a strong statement in view of the above...Moreover, even Shira’s URL reference to “The Statistical basis of Sir John Hope” was faulty....You have given the correct URL, but it is a pity Shira could not be bothered to check her URL first before quoting it.


I look forward to you demonstrating that I was incorrect on the above.

[shira]

120. Hope-Simpson claim of 61,408 Arab families cultivating land..

"If a deduction of 29.4 per cent, is made from the total of 86,980 families reached above, the balance is 61,408 families actually cultivating the land in the Hills and the Five Plains."
http://www.zionism-israel.com/Palestine_Hope_Simpson_Report.htm

Together with the Lewis French report, it was a whopping 1% of Arab families dispossessed while during the Mandate era, Arab families came to own more than twice the amount of land owned at the beginning of the Mandate.

[oberliner]

122. Have you got a copy of the Peel Commission Report?

If so, have a look at Chapter IX, paragraphs 60 and 61 (page 240).

The paragraph notes that over half of those families were provided with land and that some of the remainder declined the land offered them on the grounds that they were not accustomed to the climate of the new area.

The number of families does vary from paragraph 60 to 61 based on the evidence submitted by the Jewish population and the number of applications admitted from landless Arabs (ranging from the mid to high 600s)

It is noted, however, that this number of families does not necessarily represent the entirety of all who were displaced as a result of land purchases, but rather those whose applications for resettlement were admitted and allowed by the Mandatory British governing authority.

With respect to Hope-Simpson, I was responding to your statement that the report does not "repeat the claim of 61,408 families". You are wrong in the sense that the Hope-Simpson report does use that particular figure:

"Fellah families cultivating.An enquiry has been made by a Commission appointed by the Palestine Government into the economic condition of agriculturists in 104 representative villages. In these villages there reside 23,573 families, of whom 16,633 have holdings and 6,940 have not, that is to say, that there are in these villages 29.4 per cent, of families who live, not directly by cultivation, but by labour either in the village or outside and in other ways. Everywhere there is the complaint that many of the cultivators have lost their land. Doubtless this 29.4 per cent, includes these landless men who previously were cultivators. If a deduction of 29.4 per cent, is made from the total of 86,980 families reached above, the balance is 61,408 families actually cultivating the land in the Hills and the Five Plains. In addition, there are a large number of families which should be, but are not, cultivating the land."

With respect to this claim that you appear to be disputing:

"British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government's legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer"

These figures are referenced in the Peel Commission Report which itself, I believe, is referencing the Hope-Simpson and French documents.

The exact numbers given (which again can be found in Paragraph 60 of Chapter IX on page 240 of the Peel Commission Report) hew relatively closely to the claims in the paragraph you are disputing.

Namely, 3,271 applications from landless Arabs (up to January 1936) with 2,607 such claims being disallowed, leaving 664 admitted to the Register. Of those, more than half were provided with land, again, according to the Peel Commission Report.

While I would grant that the numbers don't match exactly, they are certainly in the general ballpark of the figures cited.

[kayecy]

124. Oberliner – Thank you for your explanations...........

Have you got a copy of the Peel Commission Report?

Regrettably no.....As it does not seem to be available on the Net, I presume you have your own hard-copy?

With respect to Hope-Simpson, I was responding to your statement that the report does not "repeat the claim of 61,408 families". You are wrong in the sense that the Hope-Simpson report does use that particular figure

I must congratulate you on finding the appropriate reference ....My only excuse is that I had just spent some hours researching Avneri’s deductions based on the Lewis French report and couldn’t face another search of 130 pages of the Hope-Simpson.

"British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government's legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer"....These figures are referenced in the Peel Commission Report which itself, I believe, is referencing the Hope-Simpson and French documents.

I am sure you must be right that similar figures are available in the full Peel document.....It is unfortunate that I do not have access to it....However the original reference was “Avneri, pp. 149-158; Cohen, p. 37; based on the Report on Agricultural Development and Land Settlement in Palestine by Lewis French, (December 1931, Supplementary; Report, April 1932) and material submitted to the Palestine Royal Commission.”

[Dick Dastardly]

125. I have a link to a copy. I will find it and post it for you. N/A

[kayecy]

126. Many thanks Dick.......Good to see you are still active!.......n/t

[shira]

117. Let's make this easy. Ask me any question you wish but you need to answer me too, okay?

Here's mine...

"If you were in charge instead of Al Hussayni would you have strongly "resisted" all the colonialist Zionists coming in to rob, dispossess, and disenfranchise the indigenous population? Or would you have insisted that hundreds of thousands of MORE Jews come to Palestine to be saved from antisemitic Europe? You have a choice now, either to save hundreds of thousands of innocents from Nazi fascism or assign them to their deaths by turning these "colonialist robbers" away. For the record, what would you have done? I await your response."

[kayecy]

119. Shira - First you say one thing and then another......

We're finished until you admit where you've been wrong and you answer all my questions...

First you say one thing and then another......I do not admit I have been wrong.......ipso facto "We're finished"

Of course, if you are prepared to admit where you have been wrong then I shall be happy to continue.


Here are few of your statements where you need to admit you were wrong:

1. Al Hussayni could have allowed just as many Jews into Israel as the USA

2. But worse, he actively participated in the direct murder of tens of thousands of Jews

3. The Arab population during Mandate times significantly increased at a rate higher than the Jewish population

4. Without war, not one Arab would have been forcibly removed from his/her home, disenfranchised, dispossessed, etc.

Most important of all, you need to admit you were wrong when you accused me of supporting fascists.

[shira]

121. You were wrong WRT significant dispossession and also disenfranchisement claims.

At worst, 1% of Arabs were dispossessed while Arab ownership of land more than doubled in the Mandate period, proving your claim to be over-exaggerated. As to disenfranchisement, Palestinians could have joined a democratic government and could have peacefully represented all other Arabs within Israel. Under fascist rule, which is what you think they preferred, they would absolutely be disenfranchised and unprotected under the rule of law. In Jordan where the Hashemites rule the majority Palestinian population, THAT is disenfranchisement. Arabs governing in a representative liberal democracy is the opposite of disenfranchisement.

So you're wrong.

I realize you're incapable of answering my question to you that you've ignored/dismissed several times now. There's no way for you to answer it in a politically correct way without destroying your own arguments against Zionism. We both know that. The only correct answer to my question for you is that YOU would allow mass Zionist immigration in order to save hundreds of thousands of more Jews rather than turn them away. But this would destroy all your arguments. It's the only right thing to do but you're incapable of saying it, which goes to show how immoral, backwards, and illiberal your views are on all this. That YOU would allow it and Al Hussayni and the "innocent, defenseless" Palestinians of the 1940's wouldn't is a major blow to your viewpoint. It shows how wrong they were back then and that they had no justification for keeping Jews out. After all, why take in all these Jews at death's door if their colonialist ambitions were to rob, dispossess, and disenfranchise the native Arab population? Those claims were debunked, which you cannot admit. In fact, you insist on using the Mufti's fascist propaganda that you know to be false in order to "justify" the Palestinian position back then (really just Al Hussayni and his followers, not all Palestinians). Face it, there's no defending the Mufti and his anti-semitic propaganda that you're trying to present here as legit and fact-based. The Zionist movement was extremely moral and was a win-win situation for both Jews and Arabs, had fascist Nazis like the Mufti been dealt with as they should have.

1. Al Hussayni could have allowed just as many Jews into Israel as the USA

2. But worse, he actively participated in the direct murder of tens of thousands of Jews

3. The Arab population during Mandate times significantly increased at a rate higher than the Jewish population

4. Without war, not one Arab would have been forcibly removed from his/her home, disenfranchised, dispossessed, etc.

Most important of all, you need to admit you were wrong when you accused me of supporting fascists.

1. You brought up 100's of thousands of Jews coming to America. Hussayni could have allowed that. I never meant all 6,000,000.

2. The Mufti was wanted as a war criminal by Yugoslavia for recruiting 20,000 Muslims for the Nazi SS and they participated in killing Jews. I was wrong about 10's of thousands. It was apparently around 14-15,000.

3. I was wrong about the rate at which the Arab population increased, however, as the number of Jews increased about the same number of Arabs increased as well.

4. Due to the partition plan, it's true that not one Arab would have been forcibly removed from his/her home, disenfranchised, dispossessed, etc.

[oberliner]

99. You can read the book if you read French or Hebrew

The French version was published by Metropolis in 1996 and the Hebrew version by Givat Haviva in 1997.

The reason your Google site doesn't turn up many results is presumably because you are using the US/English version of Google and the book isn't available in English.

A search on French Google, for instance, leads to numerous hits.

You can purchase the book here, for example:

http://www.news-de-stars.com/reflexion/israel-palestine-l-39-histoire-au-dela-des-mythes-une-reflexion-sur-deux-legitimites_shope4ac520589424c191fb53c39e7f7caa8.html

[kayecy]

101. Oberliner - It seems odd for anyone to quote a book which quotes an un-named commission of inquiry..

Thanks - I think my French is good enough to read the book if I had access to it but the crux of the matter is not whether the book said what Shira's Zionist site quoted but rather what was this mysterious "1936 commission of inquiry" and what were the circumstances of the 654 Palestinian families.

It seems odd for anyone to quote a book which in turn quotes an un-named commission of inquiry!

[oberliner]

103. I agree - but maybe check out the book and see for yourself

It would be worth finding out where that book got that information from. And if the info is wrong, it would be worth correcting.

[oberliner]

123. You are linking to a short summary of the Peel Commission Report - not the report itself

You refer to the Peel Commission Report but link to a short summary of some of the report's findings. The summary presented in the link you've provided is several pages, while the report itself is over 400 pages.

That may explain why you are unable to find the numbers in question.

[arcticken]

5. 90 days will make no difference to

Abbas who waited for 9 months before coming to the table at the last hour thereby guaranteeing a crisis.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. A settlement micro-hudna makes no difference to anyone much at all...

C'mon. 90 days and then they're busy building illegal settlements on territory that isn't part of Israel again? Here's a novel idea. Nutty guaranteed a crisis by not extending the existing settlement 'freeze' and just about everyone can see he's got no interest in a peaceful and fair resolution to the conflict...

[azurnoir]

24. There is in IMO a question here

this "proposal" is being presented as something brand spanking new, however it seems a rehash of the proposal that was presented and rejected by Israel in late September or early October, so the question must be asked why would Israel now find this so acceptable, what will be different now in 3 months that was not a month or so ago? Could it be that what is then unknown is no longer?

[Violet_Crumble]

27. I didn't think Israel finds the offer acceptable...

I don't know why they woudn't, though. Hell, if I was a cabinet member who supported the settlers and believed the West Bank was Israel's to do with as it wants, I'd be jumping at that offer. I mean, down the tools and building approvals for 90 days and after that they've got a promise from the US that it won't ask them to extend the settlement freeze. It's a win-win situation for Israel, and yet again, it'd make the Obama administration look like they're siding well and truly with Israel against the people Israel are occupying...

[azurnoir]

29. it looks as though Israel will now accept the offer

Analysis: Freeze expected to pass cabinet by slim margin

After spending a week congratulating Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for standing strong against American complaints over renewed building in Jerusalem, right-wing Likud Mks were forced to once again eat their words when Netanyahu brought them back a dubious gift from overseas. But although the party's right wing – including a handful of ministers – have already lined up against the newest plan for a 90-day complete building moratorium, there appears to be little that the government's right-wing can do to stop the coming winter freeze.

The current headcount in the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet seems to promise Netanyahu a narrow victory although, as in previous historic choices as well, much is dependent on Shas.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=195303

If Israel accepts this offer tomorrow the "freeze" would last until February 15 2011, when a new Republican lead Congress will be in power and one of the most prominent among them has made Netanyahu certain promises

Rep. Eric Cantor Tells Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu: New GOP Majority Will 'Serve As A Check On The Administration'

- Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday during a meeting in New York that the new GOP majority in the House will "serve as a check" on the Obama administration, a statement unusual for its blunt disagreement with U.S. policy delivered directly to a foreign leader.

"Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington," read a statement from Cantor's office on the one-on-one meeting. "He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other."

<snip>

Ron Kampeas from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency news agency found Cantor's comments extremely surprising, writing, "I can't remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president. Certainly, in statements on one specific issue or another -- building in Jerusalem, or somesuch -- lawmakers have taken the sides of other nations. But to have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House -- that sounds to me extraordinary."

Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring took issue with Kampeas' claim, writing, "The claim you make below simply isn't in there ." Kampeas also noted that the meeting itself was unusual, since foreign leaders normally meet with congressional leaders in groups. Netanyahu did, however, meet with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) separately, but the senator didn't put out an "explicitly political statement" afterward.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/12/eric-cantor-benjamin-netanyahu-israel_n_782738.html

[shira]

30. Wow - Ron Kampeas just made up crap about Cantor.

Cantor never said he'd side with Israel against the White House.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

36. LOL! When you call out people for misrepresenting Hamas or Fatah, does that mean...

...you're defending terror organizations on a liberal board?

I wouldn't accuse you of that kind of nonsense.

[azurnoir]

37. how have I called people for misrepresenting Fatah or Hamas give us an example

because you are right I have but let's see the context, I know you hate that kind of nuance don't you

[shira]

45. You admit you've called out people for misrepresenting Fatah...

...and I'm fine with that because honesty and accuracy is important.

[azurnoir]

49. Let's see an example of that I admit I have but in what context

or don't you dare to?

[azurnoir]

39. BTW I do find it "interesting" that you claim The Jewish Telegraphic Agency is lieing n/t

[shira]

46. The problem I have with Kampeas is that he rolled out the dual-loyalty trope....

...and misrepresented someone Jewish by doing so. I'd like to see him try that shit with Keith Ellison sometime.

I don't care if he represents the JTA, Likud, Meretz, or AIPAC.

[azurnoir]

47. If Keith Ellison met with Abbas and promised to keep the President "in check"

then I would not support that either, however Cantor has made other proposals concerning Israel, such as adding Israel to the US domestic budget, something that interests Israel

from Forward

But what was initially presented as an effort to secure aid to Israel from changing winds in Congress created a thunderstorm on all sides, leading Republicans to begin gently to backtrack.

Democratic lawmakers, mainly those who are involved in the foreign appropriations project, lashed out at Cantor’s proposal, while also seizing on the opportunity to make a last-minute election statement.

“This threatens foreign aid to Israel,” Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in an October 29 conference call organized by the National Jewish Democratic Council. She argued that separating aid to Israel from America’s entire foreign assistance package would be a “tremendous disservice” to Israel and could cause it to “dry on the vine.”

Her House colleague Steve Israel from New York added that he is concerned about how the new Tea Party Republicans will vote on foreign aid, since many of them share a belief that cutting government spending also requires making cuts in foreign aid, even though this aid comprises only a tiny fraction of the federal budget. “Cantor knows what the consequences of having these extremists join the Republican caucus will be, and that is why he is floating this trial balloon,” Israel said.

But while Democrats took direct aim at Cantor’s approach, presenting it as a sign of Republican insensitivity to Israel’s needs, players on the receiving end reacted cautiously. Jonathan Peled, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said Israel is “examining” the proposal. “We are in listening mode,” Peled said, adding that Jerusalem has yet to hold discussions on this issue.


Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/132787/#ixzz159DvEjo6

[Violet_Crumble]

31. They'd be crazy not to. There's so much in it for them...

Then again, extreme RWers aren't renowned for their skills in reasoning, so I still wouldn't be surprised if they don't look that particular gift horse in the mouth :)

[arcticken]

40. And of course like last time when they waited

until the last minute when it was too late, Abbas' crew is "afraid,"

"Although the PA said it would wait for clarifications from the US Administration regarding the incentive package, some of Abbas’s aides expressed fear that Washington would put heavy pressure on the Palestinian leadership to return to the talks once the Israeli government agrees to a three-month freeze."

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=195300

IOW they don't wanna return and FEAR being pressured to return. So who exactly is holding up peace talks?

[azurnoir]

44. Jerusalem IMO is a good part of the issue

it is not included in the so called freeze and we could expect an uptick in Arab evictions, don't you think?

[shira]

8. True, Abbas wasted almost the entire 10 month moratorium. Obviously, a freeze on settlements....

...is not the main issue.

[arcticken]

11. Agreed it's a red herring. m/t

[shira]

14. And Abbas had to be dragged and pressured to the talks over 9 months into the moratorium. n/t

[arcticken]

21. None of the anti-I crowd want to talk

about that do they? Why I wonder?

[azurnoir]

22. It's called thread derailing or not playing that is why but do entertain your fantasies please n/t

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

42. I found the name arcticken quiteinteresting in and of itself n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

26. I'm not part of any anti-anything crowd, but you don't want to talk to me about it...

You ignored this reply to you http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=338130&mesg_id=338145

Feel free to talk away. No-one's stopping you!

[arcticken]

41. And now they FEAR having to engage in new ones

as I posted above.

[azurnoir]

43. VC offered to engage you why have you not done so

what are you afraid of?

[Violet_Crumble]

50. They don't seem interested in having any sort of discussion...

What do you expect from the anti-P brigade ;)

[whosinpower]

57. On Jpost - the article is different - some speculations

Israel initially wanted to buy 40 F-35 jets - but could only afford 20. According to the jpost article - Obama has offered to GIVE Israel another 20 - to bring the total to 40 jets.

And this is just to stop building for 90 days - $3 billion dollars worth of military equipment. Let's put this into perspective - given the worldwide economic hardship we are all facing.

This works out to over 33 MILLION dollars a DAY for 90 days that this "incentive" will cost the American taxpayer - just to stop building settlements that were never supposed to restart under the Road map in the first place.

Why REWARD Israel in such a manner?

Apparently, according to the article - America has also offered military aid - 6-7 times BIGGER should the palistinians and the Israeli's come to a final settlement.

HO HO HO - and they call Obama - anti-Israel.......unbelievable.

snip - In past talks with the US, Barak said, Israel had wanted to purchase 40 of them planes, but due to budget cuts could only afford 20.

The US is now offering to give us the additional 20 planes in exchange for the 90-day freeze, Barak said.

Should Israel and the Palestinians succeed in coming to a final status solution to the conflict, Barak said, the US has offered it a military deal that is six or seven times larger.

Since the details of the deal for the 90-day freeze were released late Saturday night, speculation has been high that the US wants to see the conflict over the borders of a future Palestinian state resolved during that time period.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=195487

[Tripmann]

58. The real clanger for me is the fact that 90 days of a freeze=america pledging to block UN

'anti-israel' votes for a year. In other words after the 90 days, when the illegal settlement building continues, america will veto any effort of the palestinians to have the UN recognise a palestinian state, as whats left of their future state continues to be stolen from them.

I said it before and I say it again, what a fu*king joke of a peace effort. The world is watching.....

[shira]

61. The UN needs to be countered WRT their record on Israel, human rights, etc...

....that is, unless you believe it's perfectly okay for Libya to be in the UNHRC, Iran and Saudi Arabia to lead the commission on rights for women, and for Sri Lanka to be given an absolute free pass for crimes 10x worse than anything Israel allegedly committed at the same time OCL was happening. As long as in your view Israeli "scum" are getting what's coming to them - you know, 'my lot' - then all's okay in the world - even if far Rightwing lunatic antisemitic governments like Libya, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are in charge of the asylum.

:)

I know, I know, I condone human rights violations....

And that means so much coming from someone who would never show his disgust with what the UN has become.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whosinpower]

63. Attempting to derail the conversation again, I see

None of the nations you describe are on the security council. The security council is not the same as the human rights council. In order for the UN to recognize Palistine - as a soveriegn, legal state - it must be done through the security council.

None of the UNHRC issues with Israel have one iota to do with a grand incentive of 3 BILLION dollars worth of military equipment for a 90 day settlement freeze. 33 million a day......or 1.375 million PER HOUR....or almost 23 thousand dollars PER FRICKING MINUTE - for a TEMPRORARY BUILDING FREEZE.

Do you honestly believe that the number one reason, above ALL else for a two state solution is because Israel suffers from discrimination though the UNHRC?

[shira]

65. Oh - you're right - I'm thinking about the US blocking UN crappiness like Goldstone...

...but I now see it's about the UNSC.

[Tripmann]

73. Where did I call israelis 'scum'?

[shira]

74. You called Israeli IDF in Gaza child murdering scum and "my lot". n/t

[Tripmann]

75. I did not call israelis 'scum', so why make the accusation?

[shira]

76. I didn't accuse you of that...

...but now that you mention it, if "my lot" refers to Jews and Zionists who were for the military operation against Hamas (at least 90%), then it appears you think "my lot" refers to the vast majority of Jews and Zionists who were for IDF child-killing "scum" going to war in Gaza.

Of course, if you think I did accuse you of that, then kindly provide a quote.

[Tripmann]

77. From your post:"As long as in your view Israeli "scum" are getting what's coming to them"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x338130#338332

I have never referred to israelis as scum. So are you intentionally or accidentally misrepresenting me?

[shira]

78. That's not a reference from me WRT all Israelis, just the "scum" who participated in the Gaza war...

...who you believe have something coming to them.

Is "my lot" also scum for supporting military operations in Gaza during OCL?

[Tripmann]

79. Its quite clear you're implying I refer to israelis as scum.Would you like to link to where I do so

[shira]

88. Israelis, no. But only the Israeli military, yes. n/t

[Tripmann]

89. Then why imply it? Why not use the phrase 'israeli military'?

[azurnoir]

59. Israel wants it in writing

'No freeze vote until written proposal'

The security cabinet will not vote on a US proposal for a three-month settlement freeze until the Obama administration's promises are officially delivered to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in writing, Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor said in an interview with Army Radio on Tuesday.

The comments came after reticence by Likud ministers about the US keeping its promises, and Shas saying it would not make a decision on the freeze until such a written proposal was received.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=195547

but then again it guess who's fault

Palestinians have delayed freeze deal with the US

Palestinian refusal to return to the negotiating table even if a 90-day settlement freeze is in place has delayed the anticipated agreement between Israel and the US for a package of incentives in exchange for such a moratorium, The Jerusalem Post has learned from sources close to the issue.

As a result, there is no formal document to date which sets out the terms of the incentive package which was hammered out last Thursday in a day long meeting between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Netanyahu has insisted that only once he has such a document, will he bring it to the 15-member Security Cabinet for approval.

The Cabinet is set to hold its weekly meeting on Wednesday, but at present, the 90-day freeze is not on the agenda.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=195589

all of which makes me wonder of Netanyahu is falling short of votes

[whosinpower]

64. Yet another update?

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=195608

MK Edelstein says he doubts the US would ever put pledges in writing; diplomatic sources blame Palestinians for lack of letter, say they are not satisfied with 90-day freeze; Begin says letter wouldn't be enough.

snip - Based on the agreement between Netanyahu and Clinton, Israel would extend its moratorium on new West Bank settlement construction – but not east Jerusalem -- for 90 days, with the understanding the US would not seek to have it renewed further. During that time the two sides would begin substantive discussions on the border of a Palestinian state.

In return, the US would give Israel 20 F-35 joint strike fighter jets worth $3 billion, a guarantee that the US will veto any Palestinian attempt to seek unilateral statehood from the UN Security Council and that that it would block such a measure and other anti-Israeli resolutions in relevant UN bodies.

snip - In Ramallah Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat said that the Palestinians have not yet reacted to the package because it has not been officially presented to them.

"We don't know the package. I cannot comment on something I haven't received yet," Erekat said.


A mystery offer it would appear....and all the chickens run wildly....myself included. The game continues. I think perhaps someone has inflated what was discussed, and in the interest of diplomacy, the Americans have hesitated to call out the liar, but there is no letter.....