Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[JoelT1]

Most Israeli Jews today are indigenous to Israel and the Middle East or descendants of native Jews.

Arabs are indigenous to (Saudi) Arabia,

Apples and oranges.

Zionists,They are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES...As most derive from the Askenarzi sic Jews but more importantly,they are only JEWS BY CONVERSION...they have NO link to Palestine at all,because they are a hotch pot of mainly central Asians and others,just converts to Judaism....Only the Shepardic Jews and the Palestinians have direct link to Abraham and both are Semitic People,...Most Zionists and Askanazi Jews are not SEMITIC at all,yet the cry that anyone who challenge them,are Anti-Semetic (it is all crap,they use it as a defence against critique charged against them and their horrible cult)

In fact,Israel is no longer a true Semitic majority any more as none Semetics outnumber Semetic Jews...something often over looked here

By the way Zionists have a Culture of sorts,but dispite all their hollering it is Not the Culture of Real Jews,the Ultras and the Secular Jews...You should Stop trying to make out that Israel is a harmonious Country and that all Jews who live there are in harmony...They are not.That is why many Russian Jews have left Israel for Europe and America....these educated Jews see Israel in a different light to the hordes that invaded Palestine,from 1920 onwards,No Israel is just not for them,they have been to the mountain top and don't like the view

I've never claimed Israel Israel is harmonious, clearly you have not read my posts. Israel is diverse, bringing in Jews and cultures from every where in the world. On top of that you have tensions between the religious and the secular. You have a diversity of opinion on the Palestinian situation as well. In fact Israel is like many other countries...

On the rest, I will fall back on genetics since you don't seem to recognize a cultural basis for rights. You make the same arguments some of the pro-Israelis make when they insist the Palestinians have no real link to the area. Even though they show some evidence of European stock they are far closer to the other Jewish groups and the Palestinians then they are to Europe.

jewish palestinian genetics - Google Search:



Which raises the question...why single them out and do you apply the same purity standard to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

That's a fairytail

Who were the aggressors during the Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine before there was Zionism?

The pogroms are one issue, this is another.

It's the same issue, the same chain of events.
Team Palestine always dodges the issue.
Jewish state and return, was not just a "European project", it was a call that from within the Jewish community in Palestine.The pogroms against Jews in Syria-Palestine were the same as the pogroms in Europe, prior to Zionism.

Zionism was a natural answer, not the cause - to European aggression, as much as Arab aggression.

Q. You can understand who was the aggressor that lead to Kurdish independence movement, but not the the movement for the Jews in Palestine?

Apples and oranges.

Zionists,They are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES...As most derive from the Askenarzi sic Jews but more importantly,they are only JEWS BY CONVERSION...they have NO link to Palestine at all,because they are a hotch pot of mainly central Asians and others,just converts to Judaism....Only the Shepardic Jews and the Palestinians have direct link to Abraham and both are Semitic People,...Most Zionists and Askanazi Jews are not SEMITIC at all,yet the cry that anyone who challenge them,are Anti-Semetic (it is all crap,they use it as a defence against critique charged against them and their horrible cult)

In fact,Israel is no longer a true Semitic majority any more as none Semetics outnumber Semetic Jews...something often over looked here

By the way Zionists have a Culture of sorts,but dispite all their hollering it is Not the Culture of Real Jews,the Ultras and the Secular Jews...You should Stop trying to make out that Israel is a harmonious Country and that all Jews who live there are in harmony...They are not.That is why many Russian Jews have left Israel for Europe and America....these educated Jews see Israel in a different light to the hordes that invaded Palestine,from 1920 onwards,No Israel is just not for them,they have been to the mountain top and don't like the view

I've never claimed Israel Israel is harmonious, clearly you have not read my posts. Israel is diverse, bringing in Jews and cultures from every where in the world. On top of that you have tensions between the religious and the secular. You have a diversity of opinion on the Palestinian situation as well. In fact Israel is like many other countries...

On the rest, I will fall back on genetics since you don't seem to recognize a cultural basis for rights. You make the same arguments some of the pro-Israelis make when they insist the Palestinians have no real link to the area. Even though they show some evidence of European stock they are far closer to the other Jewish groups and the Palestinians then they are to Europe.

jewish palestinian genetics - Google Search:



Which raises the question...why single them out and do you apply the same purity standard to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

That's a fairytail

Who were the aggressors during the Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine before there was Zionism?

The pogroms are one issue, this is another.

It's the same issue, the same chain of events.
Team Palestine always dodges the issue.
Jewish state and return, was not just a "European project", it was a call that from within the Jewish community in Palestine.The pogroms against Jews in Syria-Palestine were the same as the pogroms in Europe, prior to Zionism.

Zionism was a natural answer, not the cause - to European aggression, as much as Arab aggression.

Q. You can understand who was the aggressor that lead to Kurdish independence movement, but not the the movement for the Jews in Palestine?

 

[rylah]

Most “palestinians” originate from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and other Arab countries. Arafat was Egyptian. Common “palestinian” surname is al-Masri “the Egyptian”

Arabs have more than sufficient self-determination

Look, the 1st part of the post is correct.

But the 2nd part is just a conversation non-starter (if You want to have a conversation with a pro-Palestinian activist). There're always two sides.

 

[JoelT1]

Jews were the original “palestinians” dating back to the Roman Empire renaming ancient Israel by that fake name palestine

And Jews were later first called “palestinians” in the British Mandate

So, the actual historical “palestinians” AKA Jews have self-determination

Most “palestinians” originate from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and other Arab countries. Arafat was Egyptian. Common “palestinian” surname is al-Masri “the Egyptian”

Arabs have more than sufficient self-determination

Look, the 1st part of the post is correct.

But the 2nd part is just a conversation non-starter (if You want to have a conversation with the pro-Palestinian activist). There're always two sides.

 

[JoelT1]

Here’s a brief history lesson: When Jordan seized Judea and Samaria and Egypt seized Gaza in the ‘48 War, they did not create a “palestinian” state because there was no such people.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

 

[rylah]

Jews were the original “palestinians” dating back to the Roman Empire renaming ancient Israel by that fake name palestine

And Jews were later first called “palestinians” in the British Mandate

So, the actual historical “palestinians” AKA Jews have self-determination

Most “palestinians” originate from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and other Arab countries. Arafat was Egyptian. Common “palestinian” surname is al-Masri “the Egyptian”

Arabs have more than sufficient self-determination

Look, the 1st part of the post is correct.

But the 2nd part is just a conversation non-starter (if You want to have a conversation with the pro-Palestinian activist). There're always two sides.

Yes, I'm one of those descendants of Palestinian Jews.

Actually if You want to understand what 'Palestinian' really meant - You should look into marriage patterns of the community within the geographic area.
The only people who were really bonded and were driven to erase all differences, as the cause of staying in the land - were the Palestinian Jews through their marriage, in, an to the land.

While Jews who came from Europe, Morocco and Yemen marry each other, Arabs from Ramallah don't usually marry those in Gaza or Hebron due to tribal connection. And they call it a society.

You can find many interesting stuff about Palestinian society, by looking into Arab sources using Google translate.

 

[JoelT1]

Jews were the original “palestinians” dating back to the Roman Empire renaming ancient Israel by that fake name palestine

And Jews were later first called “palestinians” in the British Mandate

So, the actual historical “palestinians” AKA Jews have self-determination

Most “palestinians” originate from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and other Arab countries. Arafat was Egyptian. Common “palestinian” surname is al-Masri “the Egyptian”

Arabs have more than sufficient self-determination

Look, the 1st part of the post is correct.

But the 2nd part is just a conversation non-starter (if You want to have a conversation with the pro-Palestinian activist). There're always two sides.

Yes, I'm one of those descendants of Palestinian Jews.

Actually if You want to understand what 'Palestinian' really meant - You should look into marriage patterns of the community within the geographic area.
The only people who were really bonded and were driven to erase all differences, as the cause of staying in the land - were the Palestinian Jews through their marriage, in, an to the land.

While Jews who came from Europe, Morocco and Yemen marry each other, Arabs from Ramallah don't usually marry those in Gaza or Hebron due to tribal connection. And they call it a society.

You can find many interesting stuff about Palestinian society, by looking into Arab sources using Google translate.

Winston Churchill was, in effect, Secretary of State of the British Mandate, He stated that Arabs flooded in; they were not an established population

 

[JoelT1]

Actually there are no histories of palestine and palestinians written in Arabic before the 20th century.

Jews were the original “palestinians” dating back to the Roman Empire renaming ancient Israel by that fake name palestine

And Jews were later first called “palestinians” in the British Mandate

So, the actual historical “palestinians” AKA Jews have self-determination

Most “palestinians” originate from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt and other Arab countries. Arafat was Egyptian. Common “palestinian” surname is al-Masri “the Egyptian”

Arabs have more than sufficient self-determination

Look, the 1st part of the post is correct.

But the 2nd part is just a conversation non-starter (if You want to have a conversation with the pro-Palestinian activist). There're always two sides.

Yes, I'm one of those descendants of Palestinian Jews.

Actually if You want to understand what 'Palestinian' really meant - You should look into marriage patterns of the community within the geographic area.
The only people who were really bonded and were driven to erase all differences, as the cause of staying in the land - were the Palestinian Jews through their marriage, in, an to the land.

While Jews who came from Europe, Morocco and Yemen marry each other, Arabs from Ramallah don't usually marry those in Gaza or Hebron due to tribal connection. And they call it a society.

You can find many interesting stuff about Palestinian society, by looking into Arab sources using Google translate.

 

[Sixties Fan]

• Saleh Arouri and Hamas view the "reconciliation" agreement as Fatah moving closer to Hamas and not the other way around....The "reconciliation" agreement requires from Hamas only to dissolve its shadow government in the Gaza Strip. Hamas is not being asked to recognize Israel's right to exist, or renounce terrorism or lay down its arms. Hamas is not being asked to change its anti-Semitic charter, which openly calls for the elimination not only of Israel but of Jews: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem). (Hamas Charter, Article 7)
  
  
• The "reconciliation" agreement is clearly a Fatah submission to Hamas and not vice versa. In his accord with Hamas, Abbas has signed onto Hamas's version of violent "resistance" against Israel and Jews. This is the real meaning of this Abbas-Hamas deal.

(full article online)

What is Really Uniting the Palestinians?

 

[P F Tinmore]

10 Years of the Palestine Festival of Literature

 

[thetor]

It is all so simple...Just give the Palestinians their land........and Joe The Palestinians are not the same as other Arabs as they are a Semitic People like some Jews are........But not all Jews of course(the European Zionist Type who are converts to Judiaism but are other peoples from central asia originally)The Question I ask Shusha is,why do you Hate the cousins of the Jews,the Palestinians,what have they ever done to real Jews,who they lived WITH,... IN harmony FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS??????obviously that changed after 1948...due to Terrorism,Murder and mayhem by the Jews 1948 onwards.../TOR

The Palestinians are a mixture of peoples that include Arabs and other peoples who have been in that area since ancient times.

I'm not sure why you single out the "European Zionist Type" as if they are a separate species. They aren't. All peoples who where split in migrations or overrun in conquests would most likely would have to intermarry to survive. What defines them as a people though is the continuity of a culture more then genetics. If you are going to attempt to split them that way then you have to recognize the same in the Palestinians who's population includes relatively recent immigrants from other Arab areas.

Zionists,They are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES...As most derive from the Askenarzi sic Jews but more importantly,they are only JEWS BY CONVERSION...they have NO link to Palestine at all,because they are a hotch pot of mainly central Asians and others,just converts to Judaism....Only the Shepardic Jews and the Palestinians have direct link to Abraham and both are Semitic People,...Most Zionists and Askanazi Jews are not SEMITIC at all,yet the cry that anyone who challenge them,are Anti-Semetic (it is all crap,they use it as a defence against critique charged against them and their horrible cult)

In fact,Israel is no longer a true Semitic majority any more as none Semetics outnumber Semetic Jews...something often over looked here

By the way Zionists have a Culture of sorts,but dispite all their hollering it is Not the Culture of Real Jews,the Ultras and the Secular Jews...You should Stop trying to make out that Israel is a harmonious Country and that all Jews who live there are in harmony...They are not.That is why many Russian Jews have left Israel for Europe and America....these educated Jews see Israel in a different light to the hordes that invaded Palestine,from 1920 onwards,No Israel is just not for them,they have been to the mountain top and don't like the view

I've never claimed Israel Israel is harmonious, clearly you have not read my posts. Israel is diverse, bringing in Jews and cultures from every where in the world. On top of that you have tensions between the religious and the secular. You have a diversity of opinion on the Palestinian situation as well. In fact Israel is like many other countries...

On the rest, I will fall back on genetics since you don't seem to recognize a cultural basis for rights. You make the same arguments some of the pro-Israelis make when they insist the Palestinians have no real link to the area. Even though they show some evidence of European stock they are far closer to the other Jewish groups and the Palestinians then they are to Europe.

jewish palestinian genetics - Google Search:



Which raises the question...why single them out and do you apply the same purity standard to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

That's a fairytail

Who were the aggressors during the Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine before there was Zionism?

Come off it Ry,the Pogroms were from Russia circa 1890's,Europe and Spain(not under the Moors rule but the Catholic Barbarians,in fact if you had bothered to enquire about Jewish History,you would know like me,that the Moors and Jews joined forces to fight off the Catholic invasion,incidentally the fleeing Jews were given safe heaven in Islamic Constantinople which is Istanbul Turkey today...so the Jews flourished in Muslim Spain and Muslim Constantinople)since 760 AD onwards and those filthy Nazis (who the Zionists collaborated with)1930 onwards,there were few problems with the Palestinians until the 1920's when the realization of the Zionists intentions were fully understood...you must know that these Zionists were ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and Christian Europe despised them,and gave them No safe heaven against the barbarity of the Nazis and others.tor

 

[Coyote]

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

Yes, I and all other Jews have believed that the Arabs, call them what one wishes, who lived in the region of Palestine do have the right to self determination.

It has never been the Jews who have opposed a separate State for the Arabs, it has been the Arab Leaders.
Jews did not get to agree with losing 78% of their homeland, but they did not go around attacking the Hashemites to force them to give it up.

Saying the Jews have been aggressive towards Palestinians without any context is, to me, attempting to give the Arabs the right to attack Jews.

One cannot divorce the history of the conflict by cutting off 28 years of total aggression against the Jews by the Arabs, which is what so many do.

To them, the history of the region starts in 1948 and Israel is the aggressor for "daring" to declare Independence as a State.

Did the Jews accept the Peel report of partitioning the Mandate in 1937 between Jews and Arabs? Yes, they did.

Did the Jews accept the UN Partition of what was left of the Mandate
between Jews and Arabs? Yes, it did.

Could someone explain to me what is it that Arabs continue to accuse Jews of, unless one looks at the very first riot against Jews in 1920, to the wars against Israel, to the proposed partitions, and proposed Peace treaties, and tell me that the Arab Leaders are actually wanting to allow a Jewish sovereign State "anywhere" on the ancient Jewish Homeland, if they can really help it?

No Jewish aggression? How about Irgun? Sterns Gang? The plan to and actions to drive Palestinians out, further reinforced by absentee landowner laws that made it almost impossible to reclaim property? Like I said, there were no angels.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Despite reports that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority have agreed to work together, a Fatah Central Committee meeting held today did not remove the restrictions that Mahmoud Abbas' PA has placed on Gaza.

This includes electricity, fuel, medicines, and other essentials.

For some reason, human rights groups are silent.

Despite "unity," Fatah keeps restrictions on Gaza ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

Yes, I and all other Jews have believed that the Arabs, call them what one wishes, who lived in the region of Palestine do have the right to self determination.

It has never been the Jews who have opposed a separate State for the Arabs, it has been the Arab Leaders.
Jews did not get to agree with losing 78% of their homeland, but they did not go around attacking the Hashemites to force them to give it up.

Saying the Jews have been aggressive towards Palestinians without any context is, to me, attempting to give the Arabs the right to attack Jews.

One cannot divorce the history of the conflict by cutting off 28 years of total aggression against the Jews by the Arabs, which is what so many do.

To them, the history of the region starts in 1948 and Israel is the aggressor for "daring" to declare Independence as a State.

Did the Jews accept the Peel report of partitioning the Mandate in 1937 between Jews and Arabs? Yes, they did.

Did the Jews accept the UN Partition of what was left of the Mandate
between Jews and Arabs? Yes, it did.

Could someone explain to me what is it that Arabs continue to accuse Jews of, unless one looks at the very first riot against Jews in 1920, to the wars against Israel, to the proposed partitions, and proposed Peace treaties, and tell me that the Arab Leaders are actually wanting to allow a Jewish sovereign State "anywhere" on the ancient Jewish Homeland, if they can really help it?

No Jewish aggression? How about Irgun? Sterns Gang? The plan to and actions to drive Palestinians out, further reinforced by absentee landowner laws that made it almost impossible to reclaim property? Like I said, there were no angels.

Jews had always returned to their homeland. Israel.
Even more in the 19th century.
From 1850 on, since the Ottomans began to sell their land, the Jews began, like some Arabs and others, to buy land. That was even before the advent of Theodore Herzl and the idea of returning to the land for good and be sovereign, once again, over it - in time.

What year did the Irgun and Stern Gang start with their aggression?
It was not in 1892. It was not in 1920 or 1921 or in 1929.

Seriously, what year did those groups get together and start using any aggression on the Arabs, or the British, and what events led to these groups to come together and act as they did?
Was it to expel the Arabs, as many as they were, or was it to protect themselves against any more Arab aggression, and British inadequate behavior?

There was a plan, just in case, and that was way after endless violent attacks by the Arabs. If it got to it. But it never did.
If you may recall in 1967 Israel got Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter back from Jordan.
Were the Arabs expelled? No.

Let us go back to 1920 to 1948.
1920 - Jews expelled from Gaza
1925 - Jews expelled from TranJordan
1929 - Jews expelled from Hebron (oldest Jewish community of 3800 years)
1948 - Jews are expelled from Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem ( no other quarter was ethnically cleansed)


Please, tell me now, what is more important:

1) Planning a expulsion of a people because they are continuously threatening the life of your people and all others who stayed in Israel?

or

2) The actual actions of a group against the other where they managed to constantly ethnically cleanse the other group from various areas of their ancient homeland in a period of 28 years?

Are there Arabs living in Israel ? Yes, about 2 Million of them.

Are there any Jews living in Gaza or Areas A and B of Judea and Samaria. Or Jordan? No

So, I will ask you again.

What is it that you have been reading, or watching, that has led you to believe that Israel or the Jewish people were about to keep all of the mandate for Palestine to themselves, when they are the ones who were expelled from various areas of that Mandate, and the Arab leaders continue to have written in their charters that they mean to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews (ethnic cleansing by any other words)

If most Arabs never owned any land, and they merely worked on it, or only arrived on the land in the 20th century, why is it that they are considered the owners of the land if they never bought any from the
absentee owners, which were usually wealthy Arabs, or other Muslims?

There are Arabs who did buy land from the Ottomans, or absentee owners and have shown the papers in Israeli court and gotten their land back.

Even those who have no papers and just say that the land is theirs are getting that land given to them by the Israeli courts, despite the fact that the Jews have the title to the land in question. It has become, make the Arabs happy and the Jews, to heck with them in the courts in Israel. How about that for justice.

Israel is following exactly how the Ottoman and British land laws were. Nothing has been changed. If Arabs, or Druze, or Bedouins, or Jews can show the title to their land, that they bought it, then they will have that land, or home, or building.
It is not one sided.

Do you have any other questions, Coyote, feel free to bring them up.

 

[rylah]

The Palestinians are a mixture of peoples that include Arabs and other peoples who have been in that area since ancient times.

I'm not sure why you single out the "European Zionist Type" as if they are a separate species. They aren't. All peoples who where split in migrations or overrun in conquests would most likely would have to intermarry to survive. What defines them as a people though is the continuity of a culture more then genetics. If you are going to attempt to split them that way then you have to recognize the same in the Palestinians who's population includes relatively recent immigrants from other Arab areas.

Zionists,They are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES...As most derive from the Askenarzi sic Jews but more importantly,they are only JEWS BY CONVERSION...they have NO link to Palestine at all,because they are a hotch pot of mainly central Asians and others,just converts to Judaism....Only the Shepardic Jews and the Palestinians have direct link to Abraham and both are Semitic People,...Most Zionists and Askanazi Jews are not SEMITIC at all,yet the cry that anyone who challenge them,are Anti-Semetic (it is all crap,they use it as a defence against critique charged against them and their horrible cult)

In fact,Israel is no longer a true Semitic majority any more as none Semetics outnumber Semetic Jews...something often over looked here

By the way Zionists have a Culture of sorts,but dispite all their hollering it is Not the Culture of Real Jews,the Ultras and the Secular Jews...You should Stop trying to make out that Israel is a harmonious Country and that all Jews who live there are in harmony...They are not.That is why many Russian Jews have left Israel for Europe and America....these educated Jews see Israel in a different light to the hordes that invaded Palestine,from 1920 onwards,No Israel is just not for them,they have been to the mountain top and don't like the view

I've never claimed Israel Israel is harmonious, clearly you have not read my posts. Israel is diverse, bringing in Jews and cultures from every where in the world. On top of that you have tensions between the religious and the secular. You have a diversity of opinion on the Palestinian situation as well. In fact Israel is like many other countries...

On the rest, I will fall back on genetics since you don't seem to recognize a cultural basis for rights. You make the same arguments some of the pro-Israelis make when they insist the Palestinians have no real link to the area. Even though they show some evidence of European stock they are far closer to the other Jewish groups and the Palestinians then they are to Europe.

jewish palestinian genetics - Google Search:



Which raises the question...why single them out and do you apply the same purity standard to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

That's a fairytail

Who were the aggressors during the Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine before there was Zionism?

Come off it Ry,the Pogroms were from Russia circa 1890's,Europe and Spain(not under the Moors rule but the Catholic Barbarians,in fact if you had bothered to enquire about Jewish History,you would know like me,that the Moors and Jews joined forces to fight off the Catholic invasion,incidentally the fleeing Jews were given safe heaven in Islamic Constantinople which is Istanbul Turkey today...so the Jews flourished in Muslim Spain and Muslim Constantinople)since 760 AD onwards and those filthy Nazis (who the Zionists collaborated with)1930 onwards,there were few problems with the Palestinians until the 1920's when the realization of the Zionists intentions were fully understood...you must know that these Zionists were ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and Christian Europe despised them,and gave them No safe heaven against the barbarity of the Nazis and others.tor

I won't "come off it" simply because it doesn't fit Your narrative.
Your Palestine Kumbaya fairytale is just that - Arab fairytale of 1001 nights.

Whole communities of Palestinian Jews had to flee to Damascus and Egypt because of those Arab Pogroms - prior to Zionism.

1517 Safed
1660 Tiberias
1660 Safed
1834 Safed Pogrom
1834 - Hebron Pogrom
1840- Damascus
1850 - Aleppo
1860 -Damascus

Q. So what was the Arab excuse for Pogroms before Zionism?

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

The Arab Palestinians were not a Party to the agreement.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

Yes, I and all other Jews have believed that the Arabs, call them what one wishes, who lived in the region of Palestine do have the right to self determination.

It has never been the Jews who have opposed a separate State for the Arabs, it has been the Arab Leaders.
Jews did not get to agree with losing 78% of their homeland, but they did not go around attacking the Hashemites to force them to give it up.

Saying the Jews have been aggressive towards Palestinians without any context is, to me, attempting to give the Arabs the right to attack Jews.

One cannot divorce the history of the conflict by cutting off 28 years of total aggression against the Jews by the Arabs, which is what so many do.

To them, the history of the region starts in 1948 and Israel is the aggressor for "daring" to declare Independence as a State.

Did the Jews accept the Peel report of partitioning the Mandate in 1937 between Jews and Arabs? Yes, they did.

Did the Jews accept the UN Partition of what was left of the Mandate
between Jews and Arabs? Yes, it did.

Could someone explain to me what is it that Arabs continue to accuse Jews of, unless one looks at the very first riot against Jews in 1920, to the wars against Israel, to the proposed partitions, and proposed Peace treaties, and tell me that the Arab Leaders are actually wanting to allow a Jewish sovereign State "anywhere" on the ancient Jewish Homeland, if they can really help it?

No Jewish aggression? How about Irgun? Sterns Gang? The plan to and actions to drive Palestinians out, further reinforced by absentee landowner laws that made it almost impossible to reclaim property? Like I said, there were no angels.

I am curious:
With what weapons, with what army, with what numbers, with what power or anything else, could the Jews have planned to ethnically cleanse the Mandate for Palestine of Arabs before 1948?
(Even if there was a Plan Dalet, which was never implemented, how were the Jews supposed to win against so many Arabs? Make all of them move away from their homeland, if they did not manage to get TranJordan back from the Hashemites, or Gaza?)

Let us consider the number of Arabs in the Mandate by 1948.
Let us consider the number of Arab countries surrounding what was to become Israel in 1948.

Just what plan could that have been which would have succeeded in getting rid of all the Arabs in the Mandate?

 

[thetor]

I did not say there were no disputes

Zionists,They are a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SPECIES...As most derive from the Askenarzi sic Jews but more importantly,they are only JEWS BY CONVERSION...they have NO link to Palestine at all,because they are a hotch pot of mainly central Asians and others,just converts to Judaism....Only the Shepardic Jews and the Palestinians have direct link to Abraham and both are Semitic People,...Most Zionists and Askanazi Jews are not SEMITIC at all,yet the cry that anyone who challenge them,are Anti-Semetic (it is all crap,they use it as a defence against critique charged against them and their horrible cult)

In fact,Israel is no longer a true Semitic majority any more as none Semetics outnumber Semetic Jews...something often over looked here

By the way Zionists have a Culture of sorts,but dispite all their hollering it is Not the Culture of Real Jews,the Ultras and the Secular Jews...You should Stop trying to make out that Israel is a harmonious Country and that all Jews who live there are in harmony...They are not.That is why many Russian Jews have left Israel for Europe and America....these educated Jews see Israel in a different light to the hordes that invaded Palestine,from 1920 onwards,No Israel is just not for them,they have been to the mountain top and don't like the view

I've never claimed Israel Israel is harmonious, clearly you have not read my posts. Israel is diverse, bringing in Jews and cultures from every where in the world. On top of that you have tensions between the religious and the secular. You have a diversity of opinion on the Palestinian situation as well. In fact Israel is like many other countries...

On the rest, I will fall back on genetics since you don't seem to recognize a cultural basis for rights. You make the same arguments some of the pro-Israelis make when they insist the Palestinians have no real link to the area. Even though they show some evidence of European stock they are far closer to the other Jewish groups and the Palestinians then they are to Europe.

jewish palestinian genetics - Google Search:



Which raises the question...why single them out and do you apply the same purity standard to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

That's a fairytail

Who were the aggressors during the Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine before there was Zionism?

Come off it Ry,the Pogroms were from Russia circa 1890's,Europe and Spain(not under the Moors rule but the Catholic Barbarians,in fact if you had bothered to enquire about Jewish History,you would know like me,that the Moors and Jews joined forces to fight off the Catholic invasion,incidentally the fleeing Jews were given safe heaven in Islamic Constantinople which is Istanbul Turkey today...so the Jews flourished in Muslim Spain and Muslim Constantinople)since 760 AD onwards and those filthy Nazis (who the Zionists collaborated with)1930 onwards,there were few problems with the Palestinians until the 1920's when the realization of the Zionists intentions were fully understood...you must know that these Zionists were ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and Christian Europe despised them,and gave them No safe heaven against the barbarity of the Nazis and others.tor

I won't "come off it" simply because it doesn't fit Your narrative.
Your Palestine Kumbaya fairytale is just that - Arab fairytale of 1001 nights.

Whole communities of Palestinian Jews had to flee to Damascus and Egypt because of those Arab Pogroms - prior to Zionism.

1517 Safed
1660 Tiberias
1660 Safed
1834 Safed Pogrom
1834 - Hebron Pogrom
1840- Damascus
1850 - Aleppo
1860 -Damascus

Q. So what was the Arab excuse for Pogroms before Zionism?

,I did not say there were no disputes,but very few,you will also note Damascus and Aleppo are not in Palestine,most of the nearly 2000 years the Jews(you say Palestinian Jews,and I thank you Ry for that aknowlegment) things were harmonious.......moreover when we compare to Europe and the Christians,the Palestinian-Jewish disputes are just a Piss in the Ocean...You have completely exaggerated the situations,you should Love your Palestinian brethren more as I do, the very fine Jews throughout history...you are saying your inaccurate statements are the facts...they are not...Why do you Never criticize the Christians,Catholics,Russians and Germans...yet you continually rabbit on about how terrible the Palestinians are.and considering what the Jews have done to the Palestinians makes your prose churlish indeed..it shows a very ignorant and weak attitude in my opinion,I hope in future instead of an inaccurate one-liners Ry,you like me delve deeper into the facts....Have a good day Ry...I am not your enemy

 

[Indeependent]

I did not say there were no disputes

I've never claimed Israel Israel is harmonious, clearly you have not read my posts. Israel is diverse, bringing in Jews and cultures from every where in the world. On top of that you have tensions between the religious and the secular. You have a diversity of opinion on the Palestinian situation as well. In fact Israel is like many other countries...

On the rest, I will fall back on genetics since you don't seem to recognize a cultural basis for rights. You make the same arguments some of the pro-Israelis make when they insist the Palestinians have no real link to the area. Even though they show some evidence of European stock they are far closer to the other Jewish groups and the Palestinians then they are to Europe.

jewish palestinian genetics - Google Search:



Which raises the question...why single them out and do you apply the same purity standard to the Palestinians?

The Palestinians were at home (where they had lived for centuries) minding their own business when the Zionists came down from Europe with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and taking it over for themselves.

So, who is the initial aggressor?

That's a fairytail

Who were the aggressors during the Arab Pogroms against Jews in Palestine before there was Zionism?

Come off it Ry,the Pogroms were from Russia circa 1890's,Europe and Spain(not under the Moors rule but the Catholic Barbarians,in fact if you had bothered to enquire about Jewish History,you would know like me,that the Moors and Jews joined forces to fight off the Catholic invasion,incidentally the fleeing Jews were given safe heaven in Islamic Constantinople which is Istanbul Turkey today...so the Jews flourished in Muslim Spain and Muslim Constantinople)since 760 AD onwards and those filthy Nazis (who the Zionists collaborated with)1930 onwards,there were few problems with the Palestinians until the 1920's when the realization of the Zionists intentions were fully understood...you must know that these Zionists were ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and Christian Europe despised them,and gave them No safe heaven against the barbarity of the Nazis and others.tor

I won't "come off it" simply because it doesn't fit Your narrative.
Your Palestine Kumbaya fairytale is just that - Arab fairytale of 1001 nights.

Whole communities of Palestinian Jews had to flee to Damascus and Egypt because of those Arab Pogroms - prior to Zionism.

1517 Safed
1660 Tiberias
1660 Safed
1834 Safed Pogrom
1834 - Hebron Pogrom
1840- Damascus
1850 - Aleppo
1860 -Damascus

Q. So what was the Arab excuse for Pogroms before Zionism?

,I did not say there were no disputes,but very few,you will also note Damascus and Aleppo are not in Palestine,most of the nearly 2000 years the Jews(you say Palestinian Jews,and I thank you Ry for that aknowlegment) things were harmonious.......moreover when we compare to Europe and the Christians,the Palestinian-Jewish disputes are just a Piss in the Ocean...You have completely exaggerated the situations,you should Love your Palestinian brethren more as I do, the very fine Jews throughout history...you are saying your inaccurate statements are the facts...they are not...Why do you Never criticize the Christians,Catholics,Russians and Germans...yet you continually rabbit on about how terrible the Palestinians are.and considering what the Jews have done to the Palestinians makes your prose churlish indeed..it shows a very ignorant and weak attitude in my opinion,I hope in future instead of an inaccurate one-liners Ry,you like me delve deeper into the facts....Have a good day Ry...I am not your enemy

Things were always good between Jews and Arabs when Jews paid their tax.

 

[Coyote]

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

Neither was Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq.

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

Yes, I and all other Jews have believed that the Arabs, call them what one wishes, who lived in the region of Palestine do have the right to self determination.

It has never been the Jews who have opposed a separate State for the Arabs, it has been the Arab Leaders.
Jews did not get to agree with losing 78% of their homeland, but they did not go around attacking the Hashemites to force them to give it up.

Saying the Jews have been aggressive towards Palestinians without any context is, to me, attempting to give the Arabs the right to attack Jews.

One cannot divorce the history of the conflict by cutting off 28 years of total aggression against the Jews by the Arabs, which is what so many do.

To them, the history of the region starts in 1948 and Israel is the aggressor for "daring" to declare Independence as a State.

Did the Jews accept the Peel report of partitioning the Mandate in 1937 between Jews and Arabs? Yes, they did.

Did the Jews accept the UN Partition of what was left of the Mandate
between Jews and Arabs? Yes, it did.

Could someone explain to me what is it that Arabs continue to accuse Jews of, unless one looks at the very first riot against Jews in 1920, to the wars against Israel, to the proposed partitions, and proposed Peace treaties, and tell me that the Arab Leaders are actually wanting to allow a Jewish sovereign State "anywhere" on the ancient Jewish Homeland, if they can really help it?

No Jewish aggression? How about Irgun? Sterns Gang? The plan to and actions to drive Palestinians out, further reinforced by absentee landowner laws that made it almost impossible to reclaim property? Like I said, there were no angels.

I am curious:
With what weapons, with what army, with what numbers, with what power or anything else, could the Jews have planned to ethnically cleanse the Mandate for Palestine of Arabs before 1948?
(Even if there was a Plan Dalet, which was never implemented, how were the Jews supposed to win against so many Arabs? Make all of them move away from their homeland, if they did not manage to get TranJordan back from the Hashemites, or Gaza?)

Let us consider the number of Arabs in the Mandate by 1948.
Let us consider the number of Arab countries surrounding what was to become Israel in 1948.

Just what plan could that have been which would have succeeded in getting rid of all the Arabs in the Mandate?

Who said anything about driving all the Arabs out of the Mandate?

 

[Sixties Fan]

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

You clearly show that you do not know the issue and do not care to know it.

There were FOUR Mandates after WWI out of the Ottoman Empire.
The ARABS/Muslims got 99% of the land, which was not theirs, but had been conquered over a period of 1300 years by Arab Muslims, Christians and the Ottoman Turks.

Lebanon and Syrian were under French management. Iraq and Palestine/Israel were under the British.

Jordan is part of the Mandate for Palestine. It was known as TransJordan. It was to be part of the Jewish homeland until 1922 when the British decided that the Jews did not need that land, without asking them, and gave it to descendants of Mohammad who had just been kicked out of Arabia, their very ancient homeland.

The British decided that the Jews did not, after all, need a sovereign homeland, and they decided to keep the rest for themselves.
That upset the Jews and the Arabs living on the land.

You confuse the Mandate for Palestine with the other three Mandates for some reason.
You do not specify what agreement that was.
Who was supposed to agree about it and for what purpose.

The Ottomans LOST the war for siding with Germany.

It was up to the Allies to decide what to do with it.
No complaints from the Muslim Arabs in Lebanon, Iraq and Syrian.
But then, the minority indigenous of those lands were not allowed to have any voice and had no power to stop the Allies from cutting the land as they did.
Not the Kurds, the Yazidis, the Assyrians, etc, etc, etc

So, as long as those three mandates ended up fully in Arab Muslim hands, the Muslims were happy.

Jews win sovereignty over just a little 20% of what had been promised them on their traditional Ancient Homeland , and all hell breaks lose.

And you cannot see where the issue is.

You cannot explain why the indigenous people of the land should have less of a right to sovereignty to the land then the Arabs who invaded, or the Turks who invaded, or any other invader to the land of Israel.

The explanation to the refusal to allow Jews to have sovereignty on their ancient homeland is easy to know. It can be found very easily in the writings by Christians and Muslims of the first 7 centuries of the modern era.

Jews did not attack Arabs when the were expelled from Gaza in 1920.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from TranJordan in 1925.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from Hebron and Sfad in 1929.
Jews did not attack Arabs when they were expelled from the very Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or from all of Judea and Samaria in 1948.

And I am talking about firing rockets, suicide belts, or any other out of this world way of attacking Arabs which would have forced them to give up those areas, as Arabs have been doing in order to force Jews to give up more and more of what is sovereign or historically important to them as the indigenous people of the land.

Be it the Temple Mount, Jerusalem, Hebron, the Cave of the Patriarchs, the Arabs have refused to share. Be it any place where Jews consider it important to their history, culture or religion, the Muslims, for 1400 years, have found a way to deny the Jews any rights to them.

Jews must keep the sovereignty of their land. As much of it as possible. They do share it with the Arabs. They do not attack Arabs if they come to visit or work for them or with them.
The same is not true almost every time a Jew accidentally ends up on Areas A or B or Judea/Samaria.
No Jew works in Areas A or B. They are not allowed.
Many Arabs work in Area C or in Jerusalem.

You, and quite a few others are indeed very confused about all the issues. You do the confusing all on your own.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

Yes, I and all other Jews have believed that the Arabs, call them what one wishes, who lived in the region of Palestine do have the right to self determination.

It has never been the Jews who have opposed a separate State for the Arabs, it has been the Arab Leaders.
Jews did not get to agree with losing 78% of their homeland, but they did not go around attacking the Hashemites to force them to give it up.

Saying the Jews have been aggressive towards Palestinians without any context is, to me, attempting to give the Arabs the right to attack Jews.

One cannot divorce the history of the conflict by cutting off 28 years of total aggression against the Jews by the Arabs, which is what so many do.

To them, the history of the region starts in 1948 and Israel is the aggressor for "daring" to declare Independence as a State.

Did the Jews accept the Peel report of partitioning the Mandate in 1937 between Jews and Arabs? Yes, they did.

Did the Jews accept the UN Partition of what was left of the Mandate
between Jews and Arabs? Yes, it did.

Could someone explain to me what is it that Arabs continue to accuse Jews of, unless one looks at the very first riot against Jews in 1920, to the wars against Israel, to the proposed partitions, and proposed Peace treaties, and tell me that the Arab Leaders are actually wanting to allow a Jewish sovereign State "anywhere" on the ancient Jewish Homeland, if they can really help it?

No Jewish aggression? How about Irgun? Sterns Gang? The plan to and actions to drive Palestinians out, further reinforced by absentee landowner laws that made it almost impossible to reclaim property? Like I said, there were no angels.

I am curious:
With what weapons, with what army, with what numbers, with what power or anything else, could the Jews have planned to ethnically cleanse the Mandate for Palestine of Arabs before 1948?
(Even if there was a Plan Dalet, which was never implemented, how were the Jews supposed to win against so many Arabs? Make all of them move away from their homeland, if they did not manage to get TranJordan back from the Hashemites, or Gaza?)

Let us consider the number of Arabs in the Mandate by 1948.
Let us consider the number of Arab countries surrounding what was to become Israel in 1948.

Just what plan could that have been which would have succeeded in getting rid of all the Arabs in the Mandate?

Who said anything about driving all the Arabs out of the Mandate?

You did:

"No Jewish aggression? How about Irgun? Sterns Gang? The plan to and actions to drive Palestinians out,"

 

[Coyote]

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

Do you believe the Palestinians have a right to self determination?

The Jews engaged in aggression against the Palestinians as well. There are no angels here.

Yes, I and all other Jews have believed that the Arabs, call them what one wishes, who lived in the region of Palestine do have the right to self determination.

It has never been the Jews who have opposed a separate State for the Arabs, it has been the Arab Leaders.
Jews did not get to agree with losing 78% of their homeland, but they did not go around attacking the Hashemites to force them to give it up.

Saying the Jews have been aggressive towards Palestinians without any context is, to me, attempting to give the Arabs the right to attack Jews.

One cannot divorce the history of the conflict by cutting off 28 years of total aggression against the Jews by the Arabs, which is what so many do.

To them, the history of the region starts in 1948 and Israel is the aggressor for "daring" to declare Independence as a State.

Did the Jews accept the Peel report of partitioning the Mandate in 1937 between Jews and Arabs? Yes, they did.

Did the Jews accept the UN Partition of what was left of the Mandate
between Jews and Arabs? Yes, it did.

Could someone explain to me what is it that Arabs continue to accuse Jews of, unless one looks at the very first riot against Jews in 1920, to the wars against Israel, to the proposed partitions, and proposed Peace treaties, and tell me that the Arab Leaders are actually wanting to allow a Jewish sovereign State "anywhere" on the ancient Jewish Homeland, if they can really help it?

No Jewish aggression? How about Irgun? Sterns Gang? The plan to and actions to drive Palestinians out, further reinforced by absentee landowner laws that made it almost impossible to reclaim property? Like I said, there were no angels.

I am curious:
With what weapons, with what army, with what numbers, with what power or anything else, could the Jews have planned to ethnically cleanse the Mandate for Palestine of Arabs before 1948?
(Even if there was a Plan Dalet, which was never implemented, how were the Jews supposed to win against so many Arabs? Make all of them move away from their homeland, if they did not manage to get TranJordan back from the Hashemites, or Gaza?)

Let us consider the number of Arabs in the Mandate by 1948.
Let us consider the number of Arab countries surrounding what was to become Israel in 1948.

Just what plan could that have been which would have succeeded in getting rid of all the Arabs in the Mandate?

Who said anything about driving all the Arabs out of the Mandate?

You did:

"No Jewish aggression? How about Irgun? Sterns Gang? The plan to and actions to drive Palestinians out,"

I wasn't referring to the entire mandate but to the area Israel finally claimed for its state.