Is Israel the Same as South Africa?

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

This is clearly a "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Jewish" web site that uses inflammatory language.

http://www.onepalestine.org/resources/Israeli_Apartheid_Laws.html

"Absentee Property Law (1950)

"Classifies the personal property of Palestinians who fled during the Zionist terror campaign of 1947/48 as 'absentee property' and places it within the power of the Custodian of Absentee Property.

"According to the law, even the property of Palestinians who are present within the newly created state of Israel, but are not physically present on their property ('internal refugees'), becomes 'absentee property.' This creates the category of 'present absentees.'

"Land Acquisition (Validity of Acts and Compensation) Law (1953)

"Confiscates the land of more than 400 Palestinian villages; "validates" retroactively their use for military purposes and for Jewish settlements.

"Development Authority (Transfer of Property Law) (1950)

"Transfers confiscated Palestinian villages and private property to the Development Authority, which is empowered to dispose of it in the interests of the State, giving priority to the Jewish National Fund - a Zionist organization aimed at settling Jewish immigrants to Israel.

"Both the JNF and the Jewish Agency - organizations that act exclusively in the interest of Jews - take on the status of quasi-governmental organizations within the framework of the Development Authority Law."

Racist Europeans transfer land taken by force of arms from indigenous Arabs to Jews from Poland and then blame the Arabs for resisting the "only democracy in the Middle East."

For a while.

(OBSERVATION)

The presentation suggests that nowhere else in the world are there laws on the abandonment of property; when clearly there are.

Embedded in the link itself, it tells you the agenda: "Israeli_Apartheid_Laws"

(COMMENT - Some Common Sense)

HAMAS tells use that consider the start of the Arab-Jewish Conflict to have begun with Izz ad-Din al-Qassam ("Muslim preacher who was a leader in the fight against British, French, and Zionist organizations in the Levant in the 1920s and 1930s. Born in Syria, he later immigrated to British Mandate Palestine where he eventually found his death in a violent confrontation with the British authorities." From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) co-founder of the Palestinian Black Hand.

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

SOURCE: The Universality of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

Since that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the regional Jewish have been in nearly constant conflict. As HAMAS implies, it did not just suddenly start either with the passage of GA/RES/181(II) (1947) or the Israeli Declaration of Independence (1948). Not uncommon with such struggles is the emergence of refugees. And with refugees comes property abandonment. It is not unique to the Arab-Israeli conflicts. In every major conflict of the 19th and 20th Century, there was property (personal and real) abandonment associated with refugee movement to safer areas. What is unique --- is the degree to which the Arab Palestinian whines about it. Hell they even whine about lost library books in the middle of the conflict. There is nothing that the HoAP will not whine and complain about in the aftermath of the failed Arab-Palestinian attempt to dismantle the Jewish State.

(ABANDON PROPERTY)

"Abandoned property is one to which the owner has relinquished all rights including reasonable expectation of privacy. Generally, abandoned property becomes the property of person who finds it and takes possession of it first. Examples of abandoned property are possessions left in a house after the tenant has moved out, vehicles left beside a road for a long period of time and or patent rights of an inventor who does not apply for a patent and allows others to use his/her invention without protest. However, an easement and other land rights are not abandoned property just because of non-use."

- See more at: Abandoned Property - Abandoned Property​

Most Respectfully,
R

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Some would think being evicted from property one's ancestors had occupied for generations at the tip of a Zionazi bayonet might qualify as prejudice, no?

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

You have it backwards.

georgephillip, et al,

This is clearly a "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Jewish" web site that uses inflammatory language.

http://www.onepalestine.org/resources/Israeli_Apartheid_Laws.html

"Absentee Property Law (1950)

"Classifies the personal property of Palestinians who fled during the Zionist terror campaign of 1947/48 as 'absentee property' and places it within the power of the Custodian of Absentee Property.

"According to the law, even the property of Palestinians who are present within the newly created state of Israel, but are not physically present on their property ('internal refugees'), becomes 'absentee property.' This creates the category of 'present absentees.'

"Land Acquisition (Validity of Acts and Compensation) Law (1953)

"Confiscates the land of more than 400 Palestinian villages; "validates" retroactively their use for military purposes and for Jewish settlements.

"Development Authority (Transfer of Property Law) (1950)

"Transfers confiscated Palestinian villages and private property to the Development Authority, which is empowered to dispose of it in the interests of the State, giving priority to the Jewish National Fund - a Zionist organization aimed at settling Jewish immigrants to Israel.

"Both the JNF and the Jewish Agency - organizations that act exclusively in the interest of Jews - take on the status of quasi-governmental organizations within the framework of the Development Authority Law."

Racist Europeans transfer land taken by force of arms from indigenous Arabs to Jews from Poland and then blame the Arabs for resisting the "only democracy in the Middle East."

For a while.

(OBSERVATION)

The presentation suggests that nowhere else in the world are there laws on the abandonment of property; when clearly there are.

Embedded in the link itself, it tells you the agenda: "Israeli_Apartheid_Laws"

(COMMENT - Some Common Sense)

HAMAS tells use that consider the start of the Arab-Jewish Conflict to have begun with Izz ad-Din al-Qassam ("Muslim preacher who was a leader in the fight against British, French, and Zionist organizations in the Levant in the 1920s and 1930s. Born in Syria, he later immigrated to British Mandate Palestine where he eventually found his death in a violent confrontation with the British authorities." From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) co-founder of the Palestinian Black Hand.

The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Moslem Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Moslem Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Moslem Brotherhood in 1968 and after.

SOURCE: The Universality of the Islamic Resistance Movement:

Since that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the regional Jewish have been in nearly constant conflict. As HAMAS implies, it did not just suddenly start either with the passage of GA/RES/181(II) (1947) or the Israeli Declaration of Independence (1948). Not uncommon with such struggles is the emergence of refugees. And with refugees comes property abandonment. It is not unique to the Arab-Israeli conflicts. In every major conflict of the 19th and 20th Century, there was property (personal and real) abandonment associated with refugee movement to safer areas. What is unique --- is the degree to which the Arab Palestinian whines about it. Hell they even whine about lost library books in the middle of the conflict. There is nothing that the HoAP will not whine and complain about in the aftermath of the failed Arab-Palestinian attempt to dismantle the Jewish State.

(ABANDON PROPERTY)

"Abandoned property is one to which the owner has relinquished all rights including reasonable expectation of privacy. Generally, abandoned property becomes the property of person who finds it and takes possession of it first. Examples of abandoned property are possessions left in a house after the tenant has moved out, vehicles left beside a road for a long period of time and or patent rights of an inventor who does not apply for a patent and allows others to use his/her invention without protest. However, an easement and other land rights are not abandoned property just because of non-use."

- See more at: Abandoned Property - Abandoned Property​

Most Respectfully,
R

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Some would think being evicted from property one's ancestors had occupied for generations at the tip of a Zionazi bayonet might qualify as prejudice, no?

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

"nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine",​

The Jewish people, in the 1920's and 1930's, when the Hero of HAMAS (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam) began the Black Hand, there was no issue of "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." That began as the Arabs in the majority began to quibble with the Jewish minority.

• Just when did the minority create a "prejudice" against the civil rights of the majority?
• Just when did the minority create a "prejudice" against the religious rights of the Majority?

I believe that happened after the Arabs begin it campaign against the minority of Jews. It is only when you see the various Hostile Arab Palestinian campaigns and wars fail, that you the see the majority start to complain.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hoffstra]

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Some would think being evicted from property one's ancestors had occupied for generations at the tip of a Zionazi bayonet might qualify as prejudice, no?

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

by not honoring and respecting the civil and human rights of non-Jews in Palestine, Israel has violated the conditions of the Balfour Declaration, San Remo Conference, and PAlestine Mandate, which allowed a Jewish state to be created.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Some would think being evicted from property one's ancestors had occupied for generations at the tip of a Zionazi bayonet might qualify as prejudice, no?..."

The truth of the matter is, that both Jews and Arabs chased each other out of parts of Palestine, during the period approaching and the period following the Israeli declaration of Statehood, and each was responsible for 'firing first' and 'evicting by bayonet' in various villages and settlements in which they were already dominant when hostilities broke out.

It's just that the Jews were the more successful at the time, and those early successes gave them the basis for a viable State, while the less successful (the Arabs) found themselves increasingly pushed back into smaller enclaves than they started with.

Of course, the losers are manifesting a case of sour grapes, and whining about how unfair it all is.

A case of sour grapes that - after sixty-five friggin' years - has become a crashing bore to most of the outside world and which is largely ignored now even by their former comrades-in-arms who bled (unsuccessfully) repeatedly to try to help them in earlier times.

It's an old story, and a stale one.

The truth of the matter is that the Palestinians themselves ALSO have a great deal of blood on their hands from those days, in the form of unprovoked attacks-upon and drivings-out of Jews in their midst.

There are no wide-eyed virgin innocents regarding those earlier times - and that holds just as true for the Palestinians as it does for the Jews - more so, maybe, because the Jews were hunkered-down, trying to simply hold-on, while the Arabs felt the need to push the Jews even harder.

And that doesn't even count the huge numbers of Palestinians who choose poorly, after being suckered into unnecessarily and voluntarily abandoning their homes at the instigation of their Muslim-Arab Neighbor-Countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq), who promised to (1) drown the Jews in the Mediterranean and (2) secure all of Palestine for the Arabs; Palestinians who oftentimes chose to fight alongside those Muslim-Arab Neighbor-Countries; with an eye towards returning home in a few weeks, after Victory Over the Jews had been achieved.

...rather than choosing to live peacefully within the new Jewish State and later enjoying the rights that those Arabs who remained behind now enjoy as enfranchised Israeli citizens.

The Palestinians who have been holed-up in those shit-hole refugee camps and towns for the past 65 years (65 years!!!) are the ones - and the descendants of the ones - who chose poorly, who chose NOT to become Israeli citizens - and who were on the losing side that is no longer trusted - and who have, by now, overplayed that old, stale poker-hand of theirs; to the point where few take them seriously any longer.

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

Yes, there we are.

Some would think being evicted from property one's ancestors had occupied for generations at the tip of a Zionazi bayonet might qualify as prejudice, no?

(COMMENT)

When the Jewish were establishing their "national home," they were faced with a very large hostile Arab population.

The "Zionazi" argument is merely name calling. Eviction is a reaction to hostile activity. Together your argument is just inflammatory, but not persuasive.

For more than 20 years prior to the end of WWII, the Arabs had been carrying out a sweeping campaign of prejudice and hardship against the Jewish Settlers. And the major objective of the Mandate was immigration of Jewish Settlers and the establishment of the Jewish Home. It was understood to be so when HRH Faisal and Chairman Weizmann met in 1919. It was still an objective in 1946. Had the Arab Populations embraced it, instead of campaigning against it, there would have been no refugee problem; because there would have been no wars. However, the arrogant Hostile Arab Palestinian almost immediately launched a long-term campaign.

The HoAP chose their fate.

“The fundamental cause of the Jaffa riots and the subsequent acts of violence was a feeling among the Arabs of discontent with, and hostility to, the Jews, due to political and economic causes, and connected with Jewish immigration, and with their conception of Zionist policy as derived from Jewish exponents.”

“the resentment which caused the Arabs to commit these excesses was ultimately due to political disappointments which they attributed to the parties concerned in the mandate, and primarily to the British Government.”

In October, a large scale military operation was necessary in order to restore the government’s authority in the Old City of Jerusalem. The total of known deaths resulting from terrorist and gang activities in 1938 was 835. In addition it was estimated that 1,000 Arab insurgents were killed in actions with the military and police.

SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

No, the prejudice and hostility was not (primarily) caused by the Jewish Settlers. The Arabs were unwilling to share.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

"...Some would think being evicted from property one's ancestors had occupied for generations at the tip of a Zionazi bayonet might qualify as prejudice, no?..."

The truth of the matter is, that both Jews and Arabs chased each other out of parts of Palestine, during the period approaching and the period following the Israeli declaration of Statehood, and each was responsible for 'firing first' and 'evicting by bayonet' in various villages and settlements in which they were already dominant when hostilities broke out.

It's just that the Jews were the more successful at the time, and those early successes gave them the basis for a viable State, while the less successful (the Arabs) found themselves increasingly pushed back into smaller enclaves than they started with.

Of course, the losers are manifesting a case of sour grapes, and whining about how unfair it all is.

A case of sour grapes that - after sixty-five friggin' years - has become a crashing bore to most of the outside world and which is largely ignored now even by their former comrades-in-arms who bled (unsuccessfully) repeatedly to try to help them in earlier times.

It's an old story, and a stale one.

The truth of the matter is that the Palestinians themselves ALSO have a great deal of blood on their hands from those days, in the form of unprovoked attacks-upon and drivings-out of Jews in their midst.

There are no wide-eyed virgin innocents regarding those earlier times - and that holds just as true for the Palestinians as it does for the Jews - more so, maybe, because the Jews were hunkered-down, trying to simply hold-on, while the Arabs felt the need to push the Jews even harder.

And that doesn't even count the huge numbers of Palestinians who choose poorly, after being suckered into unnecessarily and voluntarily abandoning their homes at the instigation of their Muslim-Arab Neighbor-Countries (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq), who promised to (1) drown the Jews in the Mediterranean and (2) secure all of Palestine for the Arabs; Palestinians who oftentimes chose to fight alongside those Muslim-Arab Neighbor-Countries; with an eye towards returning home in a few weeks, after Victory Over the Jews had been achieved.

...rather than choosing to live peacefully within the new Jewish State and later enjoying the rights that those Arabs who remained behind now enjoy as enfranchised Israeli citizens.

The Palestinians who have been holed-up in those shit-hole refugee camps and towns for the past 65 years (65 years!!!) are the ones - and the descendants of the ones - who chose poorly, who chose NOT to become Israeli citizens - and who were on the losing side that is no longer trusted - and who have, by now, overplayed that old, stale poker-hand of theirs; to the point where few take them seriously any longer.

georgephillip, et al,

Yes, there we are.

Some would think being evicted from property one's ancestors had occupied for generations at the tip of a Zionazi bayonet might qualify as prejudice, no?

(COMMENT)

When the Jewish were establishing their "national home," they were faced with a very large hostile Arab population.

The "Zionazi" argument is merely name calling. Eviction is a reaction to hostile activity. Together your argument is just inflammatory, but not persuasive.

For more than 20 years prior to the end of WWII, the Arabs had been carrying out a sweeping campaign of prejudice and hardship against the Jewish Settlers. And the major objective of the Mandate was immigration of Jewish Settlers and the establishment of the Jewish Home. It was understood to be so when HRH Faisal and Chairman Weizmann met in 1919. It was still an objective in 1946. Had the Arab Populations embraced it, instead of campaigning against it, there would have been no refugee problem; because there would have been no wars. However, the arrogant Hostile Arab Palestinian almost immediately launched a long-term campaign.

The HoAP chose their fate.

“The fundamental cause of the Jaffa riots and the subsequent acts of violence was a feeling among the Arabs of discontent with, and hostility to, the Jews, due to political and economic causes, and connected with Jewish immigration, and with their conception of Zionist policy as derived from Jewish exponents.”

“the resentment which caused the Arabs to commit these excesses was ultimately due to political disappointments which they attributed to the parties concerned in the mandate, and primarily to the British Government.”

SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

No, the prejudice and hostility was not (primarily) caused by the Jewish Settlers. The Arabs were unwilling to share.

Most Respectfully,
R

Kondor and Rocco, I simply could not have worded it better than you guys. It goes without saying that you guys both really hit the nail on the head !
Excellent posts, both of you.

Kondor, your comment about sour grapes is something I've been saying for a long time now. The Muslims have lost every war/conflict/altercation with the Jews since 1947, and so they chose to play the victim instead of admitting defeat. They have taken these 'losses' and morphed themselves into victims while making the Jews to be the agressors. And I must say, they have done an excellent job at doing so

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And the question has been answered many times. It is a nonsensical question.

I have asked many times for documents showing when Israel legally acquired any land.

(COMMENT)

Under HAMAS philosophy, you deny the validity of of anything presented that doesn't agree with your predetermined outcome.

You know very well that General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was the foundational document. Hell, even the Palestinians use it when it is to their advantage.

• You already know that PART II - Boundaries, Section A, set the original boundaries for the Arab State.
• You already know that PART II - Boundaries, Section B, set the original boundaries for the Jewish State.
• You already know that PART II - Boundaries, Section C, and PART III, Sections A thru D, and MAP in Annex B, set the original boundaries for the internationalization of Jerusalem.
• You already know that the MAP in Annex A, attached to the Resolution outlines the original boundaries for the Arab State.

You know all this, yet you always find some frivolous reasoning to deny the validity of these documents. Conversely, you also know that land acquisition (real estate purchasing and assignment of property rights) have nothing to do with sovereignty. You know that there are no such documents for any of the other Middle Eastern countries. You know that sovereignty is based on the declaration of independence by the people.

• You know that Israel Declared Independence on 15 May 1948, citing the action under the provisions of GA/RES/181(II).
• You know that Palestine Declared Independence on 16 November 1988, citing the action under the provisions of GA/RES/181(II).

You also know that the armies of five Arab Nations, in collaboration with Arab Palestinian fifth columnists living in the region, immediately crossed the borders outlined in GA/RES/181(II) in open hostility and engaged Israeli Forces. And you know that the Armistice Lines were established based on the outcome of those military engagements and that areas of control shifted in favor of the newly formed State of Israel.

You have already been presented with the facts and we already know that you deny all these facts. What more is there to say?

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, you have mentioned resolution 181 many times and at great length to prove your point. However, you continuously avoid some important facts.

1) Resolution 181 flopped. It was rejected and was never implemented.
2) Resolution 181 did not create or change any borders.
3) Resolution 181 did not transfer any Palestinian land to Israel.
4) Resolution 181 did no create, or authorize the creation of, any states.

Invoking Resolution 181 is a non answer. There is nothing there.

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

You have it backwards.

georgephillip, et al,

This is clearly a "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Jewish" web site that uses inflammatory language.


(OBSERVATION)

The presentation suggests that nowhere else in the world are there laws on the abandonment of property; when clearly there are.

Embedded in the link itself, it tells you the agenda: "Israeli_Apartheid_Laws"

(COMMENT - Some Common Sense)

HAMAS tells use that consider the start of the Arab-Jewish Conflict to have begun with Izz ad-Din al-Qassam ("Muslim preacher who was a leader in the fight against British, French, and Zionist organizations in the Levant in the 1920s and 1930s. Born in Syria, he later immigrated to British Mandate Palestine where he eventually found his death in a violent confrontation with the British authorities." From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) co-founder of the Palestinian Black Hand.



Since that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the regional Jewish have been in nearly constant conflict. As HAMAS implies, it did not just suddenly start either with the passage of GA/RES/181(II) (1947) or the Israeli Declaration of Independence (1948). Not uncommon with such struggles is the emergence of refugees. And with refugees comes property abandonment. It is not unique to the Arab-Israeli conflicts. In every major conflict of the 19th and 20th Century, there was property (personal and real) abandonment associated with refugee movement to safer areas. What is unique --- is the degree to which the Arab Palestinian whines about it. Hell they even whine about lost library books in the middle of the conflict. There is nothing that the HoAP will not whine and complain about in the aftermath of the failed Arab-Palestinian attempt to dismantle the Jewish State.

(ABANDON PROPERTY)

"Abandoned property is one to which the owner has relinquished all rights including reasonable expectation of privacy. Generally, abandoned property becomes the property of person who finds it and takes possession of it first. Examples of abandoned property are possessions left in a house after the tenant has moved out, vehicles left beside a road for a long period of time and or patent rights of an inventor who does not apply for a patent and allows others to use his/her invention without protest. However, an easement and other land rights are not abandoned property just because of non-use."

- See more at: Abandoned Property - Abandoned Property​

Most Respectfully,
R

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Some would think being evicted from property one's ancestors had occupied for generations at the tip of a Zionazi bayonet might qualify as prejudice, no?

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

"nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine",​

The Jewish people, in the 1920's and 1930's, when the Hero of HAMAS (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam) began the Black Hand, there was no issue of "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." That began as the Arabs in the majority began to quibble with the Jewish minority.

• Just when did the minority create a "prejudice" against the civil rights of the majority?
• Just when did the minority create a "prejudice" against the religious rights of the Majority?

I believe that happened after the Arabs begin it campaign against the minority of Jews. It is only when you see the various Hostile Arab Palestinian campaigns and wars fail, that you the see the majority start to complain.

Most Respectfully,
R

Qassam began the Black Hand as a self-defense response to thousands of Zionists flooding Palestine from all corners of Europe; many Zionists were not secretive about their plans for Palestine:

/www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Hidden_Roots_Zionism.html

"Vladimir Jabotinsky, one of the founding fathers of the Zionist movement, wrote in 1923:

"[It is the] iron law of every colonizing movement, a law which knows of no exceptions, a law which existed in all times and under all circumstances.

"If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison on your behalf Or else-or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempts to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not 'difficult,' not 'dangerous' but impossible!...

"Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force..."

 

[P F Tinmore]

georgephillip, et al,

Yes, there we are.

Some would think being evicted from property one's ancestors had occupied for generations at the tip of a Zionazi bayonet might qualify as prejudice, no?

(COMMENT)

When the Jewish were establishing their "national home," they were faced with a very large hostile Arab population.

The "Zionazi" argument is merely name calling. Eviction is a reaction to hostile activity. Together your argument is just inflammatory, but not persuasive.

For more than 20 years prior to the end of WWII, the Arabs had been carrying out a sweeping campaign of prejudice and hardship against the Jewish Settlers. And the major objective of the Mandate was immigration of Jewish Settlers and the establishment of the Jewish Home. It was understood to be so when HRH Faisal and Chairman Weizmann met in 1919. It was still an objective in 1946. Had the Arab Populations embraced it, instead of campaigning against it, there would have been no refugee problem; because there would have been no wars. However, the arrogant Hostile Arab Palestinian almost immediately launched a long-term campaign.

The HoAP chose their fate.

“The fundamental cause of the Jaffa riots and the subsequent acts of violence was a feeling among the Arabs of discontent with, and hostility to, the Jews, due to political and economic causes, and connected with Jewish immigration, and with their conception of Zionist policy as derived from Jewish exponents.”

“the resentment which caused the Arabs to commit these excesses was ultimately due to political disappointments which they attributed to the parties concerned in the mandate, and primarily to the British Government.”

SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

No, the prejudice and hostility was not (primarily) caused by the Jewish Settlers. The Arabs were unwilling to share.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true.

The Palestinians consistently called for a state with equal rights for all.

It was the Zionists who wanted an exclusive Jewish state. This was rejected by the native population including the native Jews.

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And the question has been answered many times. It is a nonsensical question.

I have asked many times for documents showing when Israel legally acquired any land.

(COMMENT)

Under HAMAS philosophy, you deny the validity of of anything presented that doesn't agree with your predetermined outcome.

You know very well that General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was the foundational document. Hell, even the Palestinians use it when it is to their advantage.

• You already know that PART II - Boundaries, Section A, set the original boundaries for the Arab State.
• You already know that PART II - Boundaries, Section B, set the original boundaries for the Jewish State.
• You already know that PART II - Boundaries, Section C, and PART III, Sections A thru D, and MAP in Annex B, set the original boundaries for the internationalization of Jerusalem.
• You already know that the MAP in Annex A, attached to the Resolution outlines the original boundaries for the Arab State.

You know all this, yet you always find some frivolous reasoning to deny the validity of these documents. Conversely, you also know that land acquisition (real estate purchasing and assignment of property rights) have nothing to do with sovereignty. You know that there are no such documents for any of the other Middle Eastern countries. You know that sovereignty is based on the declaration of independence by the people.

• You know that Israel Declared Independence on 15 May 1948, citing the action under the provisions of GA/RES/181(II).
• You know that Palestine Declared Independence on 16 November 1988, citing the action under the provisions of GA/RES/181(II).

You also know that the armies of five Arab Nations, in collaboration with Arab Palestinian fifth columnists living in the region, immediately crossed the borders outlined in GA/RES/181(II) in open hostility and engaged Israeli Forces. And you know that the Armistice Lines were established based on the outcome of those military engagements and that areas of control shifted in favor of the newly formed State of Israel.

You have already been presented with the facts and we already know that you deny all these facts. What more is there to say?

Most Respectfully,
R

Well the UN had no right to grant the Jews any land because it was a corrupted vote. The Jews/Zionists through Bribery to the UN members who they garnered support through CASH payments and Stealth and by Terrorist Violence and Murder moreover Europe and the USA not wanting a huge influx of Jews into their Countries.

But of course NO sensible people would accept these terms and the Palestinians were correct in their condemnation and rejection of this plan.

Israel was created by Jewish/Zionist Terrorists Violence and Corruption,Murder,Intimidation,Banishment and Degregation of the indegenious Palestinians.

These are the facts,the Jews stop at nothing to get the sympathy vote,trolling these Holacaust shows around the world for the past 60 years......I hasn't worked,the thinking world say "Hold on a Minute"...Yes it was disgraceful and wicked,the confronting images make our gut churn....... but hey one would have thought you would be the last people to treat a peoples (PALESTINIANS) in a similar matter(apart from the Final Solution of course,even though there are some on both sides,who would like to see the end of each other..these are mad people,thankfully a very small minority),even to the extent to tell your children that no one existed in Israel prior to the take over in 1948...certainly NOT PALESTINIANS.

The Israelis and Palestinians are good people and a 2 state solution is the answer.....and it is what the majority on both sides desire.

It's the Mad and Hateful on both sides that should be cast asunder.........And the strange Bible Bashers mainly from America and a few on here ... who through total Guilt support Israel,and demonize the Palestinians of who they know nothing... in the most evil way. You are peculiar and seek refuge between yourselves....a CULT MENTALITY

 

[Kondor3]

"...The Arabs were unwilling to share..."

"...Not true. The Palestinians consistently called for a state with equal rights for all. It was the Zionists who wanted an exclusive Jewish state..."

Rocco's reference to 'sharing' did not refer to co-habitation on the same land; it referred to dividing-up the land between the two parties.

From that perspective, he's absolutely correct.

It was a deal that the Palestinians should have taken, to avoid 65 years in refugee camps and towns, and being squeezed into continually-shrinking postage-stamp -sized parcels of land.

But they cannot time-warp back to 1948 for a Do-Over.

Their present failed/dying State condition is a long-term consequence of the very poor choices they made back in 1948.

"...This was rejected by the native population..."

Well, it was certainly rejected by whatever half-assed Grand Poobah and Council that jokingly passed for effective leadership of the Muslim-Arab population of Mandatory Palestine at the time, anyway.

"...including the native Jews."

Somehow, I'm finding that one a wee-bit difficult to believe.

Was there a popular plebiscite at the time of The Separation, with demographics tracking done on the Religious Data Point, which demonstrates a statistically defensible projection overall Sabra (native-born Jews) preferences, relative to partitioning the land?

Somehow, I doubt it, but you're welcome to prove differently, utilizing a credible source.

 

[P F Tinmore]

georgephillip, et al,

You have it backwards.

georgephillip, et al,

This is clearly a "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Jewish" web site that uses inflammatory language.


(OBSERVATION)

The presentation suggests that nowhere else in the world are there laws on the abandonment of property; when clearly there are.

Embedded in the link itself, it tells you the agenda: "Israeli_Apartheid_Laws"

(COMMENT - Some Common Sense)

HAMAS tells use that consider the start of the Arab-Jewish Conflict to have begun with Izz ad-Din al-Qassam ("Muslim preacher who was a leader in the fight against British, French, and Zionist organizations in the Levant in the 1920s and 1930s. Born in Syria, he later immigrated to British Mandate Palestine where he eventually found his death in a violent confrontation with the British authorities." From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) co-founder of the Palestinian Black Hand.



Since that time, the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the regional Jewish have been in nearly constant conflict. As HAMAS implies, it did not just suddenly start either with the passage of GA/RES/181(II) (1947) or the Israeli Declaration of Independence (1948). Not uncommon with such struggles is the emergence of refugees. And with refugees comes property abandonment. It is not unique to the Arab-Israeli conflicts. In every major conflict of the 19th and 20th Century, there was property (personal and real) abandonment associated with refugee movement to safer areas. What is unique --- is the degree to which the Arab Palestinian whines about it. Hell they even whine about lost library books in the middle of the conflict. There is nothing that the HoAP will not whine and complain about in the aftermath of the failed Arab-Palestinian attempt to dismantle the Jewish State.

(ABANDON PROPERTY)

"Abandoned property is one to which the owner has relinquished all rights including reasonable expectation of privacy. Generally, abandoned property becomes the property of person who finds it and takes possession of it first. Examples of abandoned property are possessions left in a house after the tenant has moved out, vehicles left beside a road for a long period of time and or patent rights of an inventor who does not apply for a patent and allows others to use his/her invention without protest. However, an easement and other land rights are not abandoned property just because of non-use."

- See more at: Abandoned Property - Abandoned Property​

Most Respectfully,
R

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Some would think being evicted from property one's ancestors had occupied for generations at the tip of a Zionazi bayonet might qualify as prejudice, no?

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

"nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine",​

The Jewish people, in the 1920's and 1930's, when the Hero of HAMAS (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam) began the Black Hand, there was no issue of "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." That began as the Arabs in the majority began to quibble with the Jewish minority.

• Just when did the minority create a "prejudice" against the civil rights of the majority?
• Just when did the minority create a "prejudice" against the religious rights of the Majority?

I believe that happened after the Arabs begin it campaign against the minority of Jews. It is only when you see the various Hostile Arab Palestinian campaigns and wars fail, that you the see the majority start to complain.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Zionists started all the hostilities when they went to Palestine to take over the country.

 

[Kondor3]

"...The Zionists started all the hostilities when they went to Palestine to take over the country."

Ahhhhh... now we get to the gist of it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...The Arabs were unwilling to share..."

"...Not true. The Palestinians consistently called for a state with equal rights for all. It was the Zionists who wanted an exclusive Jewish state..."

Rocco's reference to 'sharing' did not refer to co-habitation on the same land; it referred to dividing-up the land between the two parties.

From that perspective, he's absolutely correct.

It was a deal that the Palestinians should have taken, to avoid 65 years in refugee camps and towns, and being squeezed into continually-shrinking postage-stamp -sized parcels of land.

But they cannot time-warp back to 1948 for a Do-Over.

Their present failed/dying State condition is a long-term consequence of the very poor choices they made back in 1948.

"...This was rejected by the native population..."

Well, it was certainly rejected by whatever half-assed Grand Poobah and Council that jokingly passed for effective leadership of the Muslim-Arab population of Mandatory Palestine at the time, anyway.

"...including the native Jews."

Somehow, I'm finding that one a wee-bit difficult to believe.

Was there a popular plebiscite at the time of The Separation, with demographics tracking done on the Religious Data Point, which demonstrates a statistically defensible projection overall Sabra (native-born Jews) preferences, relative to partitioning the land?

Somehow, I doubt it, but you're welcome to prove differently, utilizing a credible source.

Somehow, I'm finding that one a wee-bit difficult to believe.

No surprise. You believe nothing but Israeli propaganda.

It was a deal that the Palestinians should have taken,

The deal was for the Palestinians to give half of their country to foreigners.

Name some other country who would accept such a deal.

I await your response.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

And the question has been answered many times. It is a nonsensical question.

I have asked many times for documents showing when Israel legally acquired any land.

(COMMENT)

Under HAMAS philosophy, you deny the validity of of anything presented that doesn't agree with your predetermined outcome.

You know very well that General Assembly Resolution 181(II) was the foundational document. Hell, even the Palestinians use it when it is to their advantage.

• You already know that PART II - Boundaries, Section A, set the original boundaries for the Arab State.
• You already know that PART II - Boundaries, Section B, set the original boundaries for the Jewish State.
• You already know that PART II - Boundaries, Section C, and PART III, Sections A thru D, and MAP in Annex B, set the original boundaries for the internationalization of Jerusalem.
• You already know that the MAP in Annex A, attached to the Resolution outlines the original boundaries for the Arab State.

You know all this, yet you always find some frivolous reasoning to deny the validity of these documents. Conversely, you also know that land acquisition (real estate purchasing and assignment of property rights) have nothing to do with sovereignty. You know that there are no such documents for any of the other Middle Eastern countries. You know that sovereignty is based on the declaration of independence by the people.

• You know that Israel Declared Independence on 15 May 1948, citing the action under the provisions of GA/RES/181(II).
• You know that Palestine Declared Independence on 16 November 1988, citing the action under the provisions of GA/RES/181(II).

You also know that the armies of five Arab Nations, in collaboration with Arab Palestinian fifth columnists living in the region, immediately crossed the borders outlined in GA/RES/181(II) in open hostility and engaged Israeli Forces. And you know that the Armistice Lines were established based on the outcome of those military engagements and that areas of control shifted in favor of the newly formed State of Israel.

You have already been presented with the facts and we already know that you deny all these facts. What more is there to say?

Most Respectfully,
R

Well the UN had no right to grant the Jews any land because it was a corrupted vote. The Jews/Zionists through Bribery to the UN members who they garnered support through CASH payments and Stealth and by Terrorist Violence and Murder moreover Europe and the USA not wanting a huge influx of Jews into their Countries.

But of course NO sensible people would accept these terms and the Palestinians were correct in their condemnation and rejection of this plan.

Israel was created by Jewish/Zionist Terrorists Violence and Corruption,Murder,Intimidation,Banishment and Degregation of the indegenious Palestinians.

These are the facts,the Jews stop at nothing to get the sympathy vote,trolling these Holacaust shows around the world for the past 60 years......I hasn't worked,the thinking world say "Hold on a Minute"...Yes it was disgraceful and wicked,the confronting images make our gut churn....... but hey one would have thought you would be the last people to treat a peoples (PALESTINIANS) in a similar matter(apart from the Final Solution of course,even though there are some on both sides,who would like to see the end of each other..these are mad people,thankfully a very small minority),even to the extent to tell your children that no one existed in Israel prior to the take over in 1948...certainly NOT PALESTINIANS.

The Israelis and Palestinians are good people and a 2 state solution is the answer.....and it is what the majority on both sides desire.

It's the Mad and Hateful on both sides that should be cast asunder.........And the strange Bible Bashers mainly from America and a few on here ... who through total Guilt support Israel,and demonize the Palestinians of who they know nothing... in the most evil way. You are peculiar and seek refuge between yourselves....a CULT MENTALITY

But of course NO sensible people would accept these terms and the Palestinians were correct in their condemnation and rejection of this plan.

 

[Kondor3]

Somehow, I'm finding that one a wee-bit difficult to believe.

No surprise. You believe nothing but Israeli propaganda.

Fine.

Educate me.

Produce your evidence.

Polling or plebiscite results showing Sabra preferences, from an objective and credible source, dating back to the 1947-1948 timeframe.

Here's your chance to prove 'Israeli propaganda' wrong in the context of Sabra preferences, as you previously claimed.

"...It was a deal that the Palestinians should have taken..."

"...The deal was for the Palestinians to give half of their country to foreigners. Name some other country who would accept such a deal. I await your response."

If your choices are:

1. Agree to a division of the land and a separation of peoples, or...

2. Be defeated and slowly die (as a prospective polity) over 65 years in refugee shit-holes

...then, most sane folks would conclude that they chose poorly.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Somehow, I'm finding that one a wee-bit difficult to believe.

No surprise. You believe nothing but Israeli propaganda.

Fine.

Educate me.

Produce your evidence.

Polling or plebiscite results showing Sabra preferences, from an objective and credible source, dating back to the 1947-1948 timeframe.

Here's your chance to prove 'Israeli propaganda' wrong in the context of Sabra preferences, as you previously claimed.

"...It was a deal that the Palestinians should have taken..."

"...The deal was for the Palestinians to give half of their country to foreigners. Name some other country who would accept such a deal. I await your response."

If your choices are:

1. Agree to a division of the land and a separation of peoples, or...

2. Be defeated and slowly die (as a prospective polity) over 65 years in refugee shit-holes

...then, most sane folks would conclude that they chose poorly.

Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem (1867-1948)

With the occupation of Palestine by His Britannic Majesty's Forces and after the confirmation of the Mandate over Palestine by the League of Nations, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917 a new era opened in the history of the Holy Land. We Orthodox Jews whose forefathers promoted the development of the Jewish Yishuv throughout the generations, who for many centuries constituted the most important element of the Yishuv in the Holy Land, were always on the very best of terms with all sections of the Community. We had hoped that the real purpose of the Mandate would be the promotion of a "Home" to which Jews who lived in the Diaspora might be able to return as their Home Land in order to live here in accordance with the Commandments of the Almighty. It was upon the first appearance of the Zionist organization as a political entity, created in and by the spirit of reform, a spirit to which Orthodox Jewry is so utterly opposed that the idea of the foundation of a Jewish state in the Holy Land was first advanced.

We furthermore wish to express our definite opposition to a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.

Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem (1867-1948) | True Torah Jews

 

[theliq]

no surprise. You believe nothing but israeli propaganda.

fine.

Educate me.

Produce your evidence.

Polling or plebiscite results showing sabra preferences, from an objective and credible source, dating back to the 1947-1948 timeframe.

Here's your chance to prove 'israeli propaganda' wrong in the context of sabra preferences, as you previously claimed.

"...the deal was for the palestinians to give half of their country to foreigners. Name some other country who would accept such a deal. I await your response."

if your choices are:

1. Agree to a division of the land and a separation of peoples, or...

2. Be defeated and slowly die (as a prospective polity) over 65 years in refugee shit-holes

...then, most sane folks would conclude that they chose poorly.

rabbi yosef tzvi dushinsky, chief rabbi of jerusalem (1867-1948)

with the occupation of palestine by his britannic majesty's forces and after the confirmation of the mandate over palestine by the league of nations, which incorporated the balfour declaration of 1917 a new era opened in the history of the holy land. We orthodox jews whose forefathers promoted the development of the jewish yishuv throughout the generations, who for many centuries constituted the most important element of the yishuv in the holy land, were always on the very best of terms with all sections of the community. We had hoped that the real purpose of the mandate would be the promotion of a "home" to which jews who lived in the diaspora might be able to return as their home land in order to live here in accordance with the commandments of the almighty. It was upon the first appearance of the zionist organization as a political entity, created in and by the spirit of reform, a spirit to which orthodox jewry is so utterly opposed that the idea of the foundation of a jewish state in the holy land was first advanced.

We furthermore wish to express our definite opposition to a jewish state in any part of palestine.

rabbi yosef tzvi dushinsky, chief rabbi of jerusalem (1867-1948) | true torah jews

please note..balfour was a jew

 

[toastman]

"...Not true. The Palestinians consistently called for a state with equal rights for all. It was the Zionists who wanted an exclusive Jewish state..."

Rocco's reference to 'sharing' did not refer to co-habitation on the same land; it referred to dividing-up the land between the two parties.

From that perspective, he's absolutely correct.

It was a deal that the Palestinians should have taken, to avoid 65 years in refugee camps and towns, and being squeezed into continually-shrinking postage-stamp -sized parcels of land.

But they cannot time-warp back to 1948 for a Do-Over.

Their present failed/dying State condition is a long-term consequence of the very poor choices they made back in 1948.



Well, it was certainly rejected by whatever half-assed Grand Poobah and Council that jokingly passed for effective leadership of the Muslim-Arab population of Mandatory Palestine at the time, anyway.



Somehow, I'm finding that one a wee-bit difficult to believe.

Was there a popular plebiscite at the time of The Separation, with demographics tracking done on the Religious Data Point, which demonstrates a statistically defensible projection overall Sabra (native-born Jews) preferences, relative to partitioning the land?

Somehow, I doubt it, but you're welcome to prove differently, utilizing a credible source.

Somehow, I'm finding that one a wee-bit difficult to believe.

No surprise. You believe nothing but Israeli propaganda.

It was a deal that the Palestinians should have taken,

The deal was for the Palestinians to give half of their country to foreigners.

Name some other country who would accept such a deal.

I await your response.

Says the biggest Arab propaganda whore on USMB

 

[toastman]

"...Not true. The Palestinians consistently called for a state with equal rights for all. It was the Zionists who wanted an exclusive Jewish state..."

Rocco's reference to 'sharing' did not refer to co-habitation on the same land; it referred to dividing-up the land between the two parties.

From that perspective, he's absolutely correct.

It was a deal that the Palestinians should have taken, to avoid 65 years in refugee camps and towns, and being squeezed into continually-shrinking postage-stamp -sized parcels of land.

But they cannot time-warp back to 1948 for a Do-Over.

Their present failed/dying State condition is a long-term consequence of the very poor choices they made back in 1948.



Well, it was certainly rejected by whatever half-assed Grand Poobah and Council that jokingly passed for effective leadership of the Muslim-Arab population of Mandatory Palestine at the time, anyway.



Somehow, I'm finding that one a wee-bit difficult to believe.

Was there a popular plebiscite at the time of The Separation, with demographics tracking done on the Religious Data Point, which demonstrates a statistically defensible projection overall Sabra (native-born Jews) preferences, relative to partitioning the land?

Somehow, I doubt it, but you're welcome to prove differently, utilizing a credible source.

Somehow, I'm finding that one a wee-bit difficult to believe.

No surprise. You believe nothing but Israeli propaganda.

It was a deal that the Palestinians should have taken,

The deal was for the Palestinians to give half of their country to foreigners.

Name some other country who would accept such a deal.

I await your response.

What country are we talking about here??