Continue to make assertions that refute nothing, brehs.
THAT DUDE IS AN AFGHAN.. WHY U THINK HE SALTY OVER FACTS? LOL
Marc Lamont Hill terminated from CNN over anti Semitic comments
- Thread starter Rell Lauren
- Start date
THAT DUDE IS AN AFGHAN.. WHY U THINK HE SALTY OVER FACTS? LOL
Nintendough
#Kliq
These white people aint even real jews or semetic. Marc is technically more semetic than any of them beanie wearing white boys.
AlainLocke
Banned
It's true...
Without the Ottoman Empire falling and the British taking over Palestine over...and allowing European Jews to move in and call it Israel...there would be no Israel...
The idea that there was any legitimate settlement of the Jews in current day Israel is a farce and political gaslighting...
There were no votes, Palestinians didn't say "Yall can come on in..."
Jews just moved in their shyt and said they are staying...
Sbp
Superstar
Fukk off white boy
A MAJORITY OF JEWS IN ISRAEL HAVE NO EUROPEAN ANCESTRY
UR CLEARLY VERY IGNORANT ON THE TOPIC
THERE WERE ALWAYS JEWS IN ISRAEL .. MY LINEAGE IS A PRIME EXAMPLE - U GUNA TELL ME THAT MY GREAT GREAT GREAT GRANDPARENTS WHO WAS ALL FROM ISRAEL IS A LIE? FOH U NEED TO FALL ALL THE WAY BACK ON THIS 1
MORE RETARDATION
MIZRAHI JEWS WHICH MAKE UP A MAJORITY OF ISRAEL ARE THE DEFINITION OF SEMITIC
WHY DO SO MANY DUMB PEOPLE POST HERE?
Sbp
Superstar
Man look fukk you fukk them imposter ass Jews and fukk everybody that supports "Israel" . Now take ya bytchass to a Jewish message board. I'm sick of you honkies
Sbp
Superstar
Die bytch
Techniec
Drugs and Kalashnikovs
thats because you shouldve checked the files, and took off as soon as you heard the warning shots
I like the part where you mentioned they both lived there, giving the impression they were both equally entitled, equally invested, etc. I didnt like the part where you conveniently left out their population percentages
8% Jewish in the late 19th Century
17% by 1931
30% by 1946
Jewish & Non-Jewish Population of Israel/Palestine (1517-Present)
Sure Jews were always there, they can thank their Muslim brothers who controlled Jerusalem for a 1000 years and never expelled the Jews. But they sure as hell were a minority with no damn right to sever the land for a state of their own at others expense
8% Jewish in the late 19th Century
17% by 1931
30% by 1946
Jewish & Non-Jewish Population of Israel/Palestine (1517-Present)
Sure Jews were always there, they can thank their Muslim brothers who controlled Jerusalem for a 1000 years and never expelled the Jews. But they sure as hell were a minority with no damn right to sever the land for a state of their own at others expense
and they revolted because? Care to explain? Any fukking reason why you would just randomly mention this event with no context whatsoever?
The 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, later came to be known as "The Great Revolt", was a nationalist uprising by Palestinian Arabs in Mandatory Palestine against the British administration of the Palestine Mandate, demanding Arab independence and the end of the policy of open-ended Jewish immigration and land purchases with the stated goal of establishing a "Jewish National Home".[10] The dissent was directly influenced by the Qassamite rebellion, following the killing of Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam in 1935, as well as the declaration by Hajj Amin al-Husseini of 16 May 1936 as 'Palestine Day' and calling for a General Strike. The revolt was branded by many in the Jewish Yishuv as "immoral and terroristic", often comparing it to fascism and nazism.[11] Ben Gurion however described Arab causes as fear of growing Jewish economic power, opposition to mass Jewish immigration and fear of the English identification with Zionism
1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine - Wikipedia
the brazen dishonestyThe Zionist leadership was bitterly divided over the plan.[5] In a resolution adopted at the 1937 Zionist Congress, the delegates rejected the specific partition plan. Yet the principle of partition is generally thought to have been "accepted" or "not rejected outright" by any major faction: the delegates empowered the leadership to pursue future negotiations.[5][8][9][10] The Jewish Agency Council later attached a request that a conference be convened to explore a peaceful settlement in terms of an undivided Palestine.[5] According to Benny Morris, Ben-Gurion and Weizmann saw it 'as a stepping stone to some further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestin
At the same Zionist Congress, David Ben-Gurion , then chairman of the executive committee of the Jewish Agency for Palestine , told those in attendance that, though "there could be no question...of giving up any part of the Land of Israel ,... it was arguable that the ultimate goal would be achieved most quickly by accepting the Peel proposals." [37] University of Arizona
professor Charles D. Smith suggests that, "Weizmann and Ben-Gurion did not feel they had to be bound by the borders proposed [by the Peel Commission]. These could be considered temporary boundaries to be expanded in the future." [37] Ben-Gurion saw the plan as only a stage in the realisation of a larger Jewish state. [38]
The two main Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and Ben-Gurion, had convinced the Zionist Congress to approve equivocally the Peel recommendations as a basis for more negotiation.
[39] [40] [41] Ben-Gurion wrote: "The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we have never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the First and Second Temples: [a Galilee almost free of non-Jews]. ... We are being given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imagination. This is more than a state, government, and sovereignty—this is a national consolidation in a free homeland. ... if because of our weakness, neglect or negligence, the thing is not done, then we will have lost a chance which we never had before, and may never have again"
Peel Commission - Wikipedia
garbage. Name ONE single fukking time Zionists actually negotiated a peaceful settlement to the conflict THEY started, in good faith
The conventional Zionist account of the 1948 War goes roughly as follows. The conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine came to a head following the passage, on 29 November 1947, of the United Nations partition resolution which called for the establishment of two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jews accepted the UN plan despite the painful sacrifices it entailed but the Palestinians, the neighbouring Arab states and the Arab League rejected it. Great Britain did everything in its power towards the end of the Palestine Mandate to frustrate the establishment of the Jewish state envisaged in the UN plan. With the expiry of the Mandate and the proclamation of the State of Israel, seven Arab states sent their armies into Palestine with the firm intention of strangling the Jewish state at birth. The subsequent struggle was an unequal one between a Jewish David and an Arab Goliath. The infant Jewish state fought a desperate, heroic and ultimately successful battle for survival against overwhelming odds. During the war, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled to the neighbouring Arab states, mainly in response to orders from their leaders and despite Jewish pleas to stay and demonstrate that peaceful co-existence was possible. After the war, the story continues, Israeli leaders sought peace with all their heart and all their might but there was no one to talk to on the other side. Arab intransigence was alone responsible for the political deadlock which was not broken until President Anwar Sadat's visit to Jerusalem thirty years later.
Until recently this standard Zionist version of the events surrounding the birth of the State of Israel remained largely unchallenged outside the Arab world. The fortieth anniversary of the birth of the state, however, witnessed the publication of a number of books which challenged various aspects of the standard Zionist version.
The first thing to note about the new historiography is that much of it is not new. Many of the arguments that are central to the new historiography were advanced long ago by Israeli writers, not to mention Palestinian, Arab and Western writers. To list all these Israeli writers is beyond the scope of this article but a few examples might be in place. One common thread that runs through the new historiography is a critical stance towards David Ben-Gurion, the founder of the State of Israel and its first Prime Minister. Whereas the old historians tend to view Ben-Gurion as representative of the consensus among the civilian and military elites, the new historians tend to portray him as the driving force behind Israel's policy in 1948, and particularly the policy of expelling the Palestinians.
A second myth, fostered by official and semi-official accounts of the 1948 War, is that the Israeli victory was achieved in the face of insurmountable military odds. Israel is pictured in these accounts as a little Jewish David confronting a giant Arab Goliath. The war is portrayed as a desperate, costly and heroic struggle for survival with plucky little Israel fighting off marauding armies from seven Arab states. Israel's ultimate victory in this war is treated as nothing short of a miracle.
The heroism of the Jewish fighters is not in question. Nor is there any doubt about the heavy price that the Yishuv paid for its victory. But the Yishuv also enjoyed a number of advantages which are commonly downplayed by the old historians. The Yishuv was better prepared, better mobilized and better organized when the struggle for Palestine reached its crucial stage than its local opponents. The Haganah, which was renamed the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) on 31 May, could draw on a large reserve of Western-trained and home-grown officers with military experience. It had an effective centralized system of command and control. And, in contrast to the armies of the Arab states, especially those of Iraq and Egypt, it had short, internal lines of communication which enabled it to operate with greater speed and mobility.
During the unofficial phase of the war, from December 1947 until 14 May 1948, the Yishuv gradually gained the upper hand in the struggle against its Palestinian opponents. Its armed forces were larger, better trained, and more technologically advanced. Despite some initial setbacks, these advantages enabled it to win and win decisively the battle against the Palestine Arabs. Even when the Arab states committed their regular armies, marking the beginning of the official phase of the war, the Yishuv retained its numerical superiority. In mid-May the total number of Arab troops, both regular and irregular, operating in Palestine was between 20,000 and 25,000. IDF fielded 35,000 troops, not counting the second-line troops in the settlements. By mid-July IDF fully mobilized 65,000 men under arms,by September the number rose to 90,000 and by December it reached a peak of 96,441. The Arab states also reinforced their armies but they could not match this rate of increase. Thus, at each stage of the war, IDF significantly outnumbered all the Arab forces ranged against it and by the final stage of the war its superiority ratio was nearly two to one
The Debate About 1948
Techniec
Drugs and Kalashnikovs
No it shouldnt have
, thats fukking illegal, this aint the 1500sNever happened. Literally never happened. Israel has never negotiated in good faith.
Well there goes this theory of yours
Arabs were willing to negotiate BEFORE Israel was even formed
Faisal–Weizmann Agreement - Wikipedia
and AFTER Israel was formed
King Abdullah proposed an overall political settlement with Israel in return for certain territorial concessions, particularly a land corridor to link Jordan with the Mediterranean, which would have enabled him to counter Arab criticisms of a separate peace with Israel. Colonel Husni Zaim, who captured power in Syria in March 1949 and was overthrown four months later, offered Israel full peace with an exchange of ambassadors, normal economic relations and the resettlement of 300,000 Palestinian refugees in Syria in return for an adjustment of the boundary between the two countries through the middle of Lake Tiberias.[44] King Farouk of Egypt demanded the cession of Gaza and a substantial strip of desert bordering on Sinai as his price for a de facto recognition of Israel. All three Arab rulers displayed remarkable pragmatism in their approach to negotiations with the Jewish state. They were even anxious to pre-empt one another because they assumed that whoever settled up with Israel first would also get the best terms. Zaim openly declared his ambition to be the first Arab leader to make peace with Israel.
In each case, though for slightly different reasons, David Ben-Gurion considered the price being asked for peace as too high. He was ready to conclude peace on the basis of the status quo; he was unwilling to proceed to a peace which involved more than minuscule Israeli concessions on refugees or on borders. Ben-Gurion, as his diary reveals, considered that the armistice agreements with the neighbouring Arab states met Israel's essential needs for recognition, security and stability.[45] He knew that for formal peace agreements Israel would have to pay by yielding substantial tracts of territory and by permitting the return of a substantial number of Palestinian refugees and he did not consider this a price worth paying. Whether Ben-Gurion made the right choice is a matter of opinion. That he had a choice is now undeniable.
The Debate About 1948
Arabs want perpetual war, you say?
"Were he an Arab leader, David Ben-Gurion once confessed to the Zionist official Nahum Goldmann, he, too, would wage perpetual war with Israel. “Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them?” he asked. “There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: We have come here and stolen their country.”
1948 - A History of the First Arab-Israeli War - Benny Morris - Book Review
In fact, "there is no evidence" to support this claim. The statements "quoted" by Israeli and Zionist sources are "now seen to be largely fabricated." The actual documentary record rather testifies to the "considerable efforts" of the Palestinian Arab leadership and the Arab states "to constrain the flight."
Indeed, "from the point of view of military logistics," the conventional view "makes no sense at all. The Arab armies, coming long distances and operating in or from the Arab areas of Palestine, needed the help of the local population for food, fuel, water, transport, manpower, and information."
So, why did the Arab indigenes abandon Palestine? Primarily because of a calculated (if unofficial) Zionist effort "to reduce the number of Arabs in the Jewish state to a minimum, and to make use of most of their lands, properties, and habitats to absorb the masses of Jewish immigrants."
No "direct orders" for expulsion were issued, but "the goal and spirit of real policy were understood and accepted by the army." Hence, Ben-Gurion's remark in May of 1948 that he was "not surprised" by the "flight of the Arabs." Later in the same year, he stated flatly that, "I am for compulsory transfer, I don't see anything immoral in it."
Norman Finkelstein: Palestine: The Truth About 1948
Mainstream Israeli historians, on the other hand, have always claimed that the refugees (numbering, in their estimation, 500,000 at most) mostly left voluntarily, responding to calls from their leaders assuring them of a prompt return after victory. They deny that the Jewish Agency (and subsequently the Israeli government) had planned the exodus. Furthermore, they maintain that the few (and regrettable) massacres that occurred - particularly the Deir Yassin massacre of 9 April 1948 - were the work of extremist soldiers associated with Menachem Begin’s Irgun and Yitzhak Shamir’s Lehi.
However, by the 1950s this version was already beginning to be contested by leading Israeli figures associated with the Communist Party and with elements of the Zionist left (notably Mapam). Later, in the mid-1980s, they were joined in their critique by a number of historians who described themselves as revisionist historians
This all helps to explain the devastating effectiveness of the Jewish offensives of spring 1948. It also sheds new light on the context in which the mass departure of Palestinians took place. The exodus was divided into two broadly equal waves: one before and one after the decisive turning-point of the declaration of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and the intervention of the armies of the neighbouring Arab states on the following day. One can agree that the flight of thousands of well-to-do Palestinians during the first few weeks following the adoption of the UN partition plan - particularly from Haifa and Jaffa - was essentially voluntary. The question is what was the truth of the departures that happened subsequently?
In the opening pages of “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”, Benny Morris offers the outlines of an overall answer: using a map that shows the 369 Arab towns and villages in Israel (within its 1949 borders), he lists, area by area, the reasons for the departure of the local population (9). In 45 cases he admits that he does not know. The inhabitants of the other 228 localities left under attack by Jewish troops, and in 41 cases they were expelled by military force. In 90 other localities, the Palestinians were in a state of panic following the fall of a neighbouring town or village, or for fear of an enemy attack, or because of rumours circulated by the Jewish army - particularly after the 9 April 1948 massacre of 250 inhabitants of Deir Yassin, where the news of the killings swept the country like wildfire.
By contrast, he found only six cases of departures at the instigation of local Arab authorities. “There is no evidence to show that the Arab states and the AHC wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes (though in certain areas the inhabitants of specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders or the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons).” ("The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem", p. 129). On the contrary, anyone who fled was actually threatened with “severe punishment”. As for the broadcasts by Arab radio stations allegedly calling on people to flee, a detailed listening to recordings of their programmes of that period shows that the claims were invented for pure propaganda.
The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined
Oh yes, of course, thats it
Its all the Arabs fault
If only they would put forward a peace proposal based on international law...wait
Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia
If only they would have relations with Israel....wait
...the Jordanians and Egyptians enjoy peace treaty with Israel and the American aid that comes with it, the Emiratis and Saudis are doing business with Israel and mobilizing their resources in a joint anti Iran effort, the Turks have had relations with Israel for six decades, the Syrians spent a decade negotiating peace with Israel, the Palestinians who literally dont have shyt....they are actually standing in the way of solving this problem.
Buddy, this is thecoli.com, NO HASBARA ZONE
get these nets
Veteran
no one gives a fukk about arabs. the issue is jews crying and bytching any time someone says something that isnt remotely in their favor in the media
this dude loses a job because he doesnt side with you
I wrote "this is bull"
Oh yes, am 100% sure.
First I'd like to see the evidence of this FACT.
If by over a billion people, you mean the global practicing Muslim population..then it's bull.
If you mean the global ARAB population, your guestimate of the number is over 2X what that number is.
I'd like to see your rationale for stating as FACT that the global Muslim population wants all jews to be extinct because,from my understanding.... Moslem and jews major conflict doesn't really exist before the 20th century. Jews lived in Moslem areas for centuries in relative peace ...and could have been wiped out at any given time. .
If you are talking about factions of global Muslims who are following the lead of Arab imams and clerics in their conflict against Israel.....surely you know that number is NO WHERE near "over a billion people"
If you arrived at over a billion some other way, please explain.
I agree with c.m. that this is a case of jews not responding well to ANY form of criticism of Israeli policy, or criticism in general and hiding behind the shield of being victims of anti-semitism.
I posted a press release from a coalition of jewish groups who are calling out this practice...and I made the joke that the deflection of criticism under a shield is similiar to the "you're an agent" smokescreen that is used here sometimes when people would rather avoid defending their stances.
An American citizen criticizing Israeli policy is not how "systemic persecutions start"...especially when that American citizen has the backing over OTHER jewish organizations.
And do you note the irony of trying to link an AA's comments about Israel to "the persecution of jews for over a millenium " when the jewish involvement in the slave trade in Europe,Caribbean and in America is well documented.?
With all due respect, please stop it.
Last edited:
