From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Thu Apr 18 2002 - 15:01:03 MDT
From: jeff davis <jrd1415@yahoo.com>
>>> The Palestinians, as long as they draw breath,
>>> utterly refuse to allow the theft of their land, their
>>> dispossession and humiliation, to be universally legitimized
>>> and propagandistically whitewashed.
>> Brian: "The Israelis didn't steal it, they bought it,
>> and paid top dollar."
>I am not well versed in the specifics of the legalities of land
>ownership and transfer in Palestine in the period 1859-1920 under
>the Ottoman Turks, and then 1920-1947, under the British Mandate.
>I have read however, that the Ottomans, at the end, were deeply in
>debt to the Europeans, and changed their laws in 1859 to permit
>the sale of land. So did the Ottomans sell from under the
>Palestinians, the land that they had lived on for generations?
>There are land sales and there are land sales.
The period I was refering to was under the British mandate 1920-
1947. The Zionists bagan moving to the middle east and buying
desert scrub from the people living there paying up to $1000 an
acre for desert at a time when prime Iowa farmland was $100 an
acre.
>The theft I was referring to--that is, prior to the wholesale
>expulsion of the Palestinians in 1947-8--was the theft of
>sovereignty, the theft of political rights, the theft of the
>Palestinian 'nation' (Of course I expect in response, to hear that
>"the Palestinians didn't have a 'nation'", and in the usually
>accepted sense they did not. Palestine was an outlying district of
>Syria, which was a suzerainty of the Ottomans. What the
>Palestinians had was 1300 years of continuous occupancy, and the
>internationally recognized--though routinely ignored-- political
>rights that go along with that.) The Brits and the zionists joined
>forces to 'make' a nation--a jewish homeland--Israel--on land that
>wasn't theirs to make such decisions about. They knew the
>Palestinians had rights, but the Brits and the zionists didn't
>care. Why should they? The Brits were the preeminent world
>power with the military resources to do anything they wanted to
>do, and the Palestinians were powerless to do anything but
>complain. So the Palestinians got screwed, right out front, in
>full view of the entire world. Which is what great powers have
>always done.
The Palestinians weren't expelled, they left at the orders of the
Arabs who were about to attack. They were screwed when the war
didn't go as expected.
The Brits didn't join with the Zionists, they hated each other, the
Israelis fought their own terrorist campaign against them.
It was the U.N that tried to solve this, your facts are wrong.
>That, Brian, is the real story. That's the Balfour Declaration,
>and the British/zionist plan for Palestine under the Bitish
>administration of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
I've read the Balfour Declaration, and the U.N. resolutions, and
the commentaries by those involved. My interpretation is completely
different from yours.
>>Brian continues:
>>"The reason the Palestinians are currently dispossessed is
>>because they lost their land trying to destroy Israel."
>No, Brian, the reason is that the Palestinians didn't have the
>military capability to prevent the zionist colonial conquest of
>their land, promoted and militarily facilitated by the British
>during their League of Nations Mandate 'stewardship' of Palestine,
>and buy the US thereafter.
The Jews didn't attack, the Arabs did, and there were 5 Arab armies
involved. The only thing the Zionists were declaring a country was
the land they had bought. The Balfour declaration came later as an
attempt to solve the conflict.
The British were anti-Zionist.
>Brian again:
>"The reason they haven't regained any is because they
>are still attempting to destroy Israel."
>But Brian, Israel is a criminal fact, no more legitimate than
>Iraq's 19th province. It's destruction is as fully justified as
>the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
Your opinion, not fact.
>>Brian again:
>>"The real fact of the matter is that the other Arab
>>countries ordered them to leave so they could attack
>>Israel."
>So you're saying that the neighboring countries formed
>a coalition to defend against a foreign aggression.
No I'm saying they banded together to try to prevent the formation
of a Jewish state, and then attacked.
>>"They were told any Arabs found living there would be
>>considered traitors. They also promised that they
>>could keep the Israelis property after they
>>were destroyed. Didn't work out that way..."
>>More Brian:
>>"I also note you failed to mention that 820,000 Jews
>>were kicked out of their homes in surrounding Arab
>>countries and their property confiscated."
>A simple question: did this happen before or AFTER the
>zionists fucked the Palestinians?
After the war the Arabs started and lost.
>Lay the blame for this where it belongs, ON THOSE WHO STARTED IT.
Okay, that would be the Arabs.
>After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Japanese-Americans
>were looked upon with extreme suspicion. Interned even. Imagine
>how much worse it could have been had the Japanese carved out a
>chunk of California and called it the Sushi Prefecture.
Lets stick to the subject.
>>Brian advises:
>>Throttle back on the rhetoric.
>I advise: you need to examine your propaganda-bloated
>worldview and learn to distinguish fact from jingoism.
I was wondering when the jingoist label would come out, rhetoric,
I use a wide variety of sources.
>PS I checked into www.camera.org ;
>israel-is-always-right-the-arabs-are-always-wrong
>political correctness thought police; but skillfully
>done. I wonder where they get their funding.
I would guess a pro-Israeli group.
>When you have little experience or interest in the
>truth--preferring the hearty flavor of to-your-taste
>jingoism--the truth must surely seem like nonsense.
More rhetoric, unsubstantiated conjecture, nonsense.
>>Brian with more:
>>"I just finished a history of the conflict and the
>>reasons behind it are nothing like the propaganda you
>>are trying to disseminate."
>I'm pleased that you are trying to improve yourself.
>If you'll provide a title and author I'll take a look
>to assess its credibility. Up till now, you seem
>inclined toward poor choice of brain feed. To assist
>you, and others, here is a link to
>Recommendations of the King-Crane
>Commission On Syria and Palestine
>http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/crane.html
You're pleased I'm trying to improve myself? More than a little
pompous here don't you think?
Alpha Book's "The Complete Idiots Guide to Middle East Conflict "
by Michell Bard Ph.D
And before you get all gleefull....
In one of those delicious twists of fate, the same Michell Bard is
the webmaster for the site you just mentioned:
www.us-israel.org/jsource
<edited for brevity>
I've already read this, a report by people who hated the Zionists
and wanted to support British interests in the region.
So what?
>By the way, despite my name, I am one hundred percent Ashkenaz Jew
>and proud of it. The blood of Abraham surges in my veins. My
>opposition to the state of israel is based on the unjust way it
>came into being, the ongoing lie being promulgated to cover the
>current and historic facts, and the savage toxic horror that
>is the consequence. Not anti-semetism.
Based on what you've posted so far I'd say it was based on
misunderstanding.
>Whatever constitutes an extropic approach to this problem, I would
>suggest that it begins with telling the truth. Finding the truth
>appears, however, to be a non-trivial undertaking.
I agree completely.
>I'm reminded of the words of Mark Twain: "Always tell
>the truth. You'll please some people, and astonish
>the rest."
Good quote.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:35 MST