UN-REALIST,
It is indeed an interesting article as it shows the Arabs doing the exact same thing. What I'm interested in is proof of your claim that DURING the Arab-Israeli war that the Jews were guilty of any large scale massacre.
France is a "Pain in the Ass"
by JH 131 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Realist
yeru,
your claim that DURING the Arab-Israeli war that the Jews were guilty of any large scale massacre.
i didn't claim that. i said:
after massacres on arabs many fled the area so the area became mainly jewish.
and that is a fact. -
Yerusalyim
UN-Realist,
Actually, the fact is that the Arab armies encouraged the Arabs to move out as their armies marched through. The Arab amries displaced most of the arabs. There were, to the best of my knowledge, no large scale massacre of arabs during the war itself. If you have info to the contrary, please share it. By the way, during this time that the Arab Armies were being displaced, Jews in Arab countries were being displaced. Over 600,000 Jews in Arab countries have lost their property, never to receive it back.
-
Realist
Yeru,
The Arab amries displaced most of the arabs.
hmmm and what would have been the purpose of that? where did you get that info from?
Over 600,000 Jews in Arab countries have lost their property, never to receive it back.
according to perry it were 750 000. i am still waiting to see the source of that info. (please no jewish webpage but a neutral source)
-
Yerusalyim
There's no such thing as a "nuetral source" in this discussion, that is unfortunate.
750,000 would indeed be over 600,000.
What would be the purpose of removing the Arabs? To give the Army the opportunity to fight without having to worry about civilian casualties. A noble idea, granted, but since most of the fighting didn't occur where this was being enforced, you have to wonder what other motive there was. It probably had something to do with Jordan, Syria, Lebenon, and Egypt doing a land grab. As is shown by the occupation of the Arabs of the Land the "Palestinains" did keep, the Arab armies had NO intention of founding a homeland for "palestinains" but rather, their objective was to carve up the Holy Land amongst themselves.
Follow this link for some interesting facts about population, in 1906 the population of Jersalem was estimated at 60,000 of which 40,000 were Jewish.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27338
Here is another link by Horowitz testifying to the displacement of 600,000 Jews
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4454
During the fighting, according to the UN mediator on the scene, an estimated 472,000 Arabs fled their homes to escape the dangers. They planned on returning after an Arab victory and the destruction of the Jewish state. During the fighting, according to the UN mediator on the scene, an estimated 472,000 Arabs fled their homes to escape the dangers. They planned on returning after an Arab victory and the destruction of the Jewish state.
There was a refugee flow into Israel, but it was a flow of Jews who had been expelled from the Arab countries. All over the Middle East, Jews were forced to leave lands they had lived on for centuries. Although Israel was a tiny geographical area and a fledgling state, its government welcomed and resettled 600,000 Jewish refugees from the Arab countries.
In the years that followed, the Israelis made their desert bloom. They built the only industrialized economy in the entire Middle East. They built the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. They treated the Arabs who remained in Israel well. To this day the very large Arab minority, which lives inside the state of Israel, has more rights and privileges than any other Arab population in the entire Middle East.
This is especially true of the Arabs living under Yasser Arafats corrupt dictatorship, the Palestine Authority, which today administers the West Bank and the Gaza strip, and whose Arab subjects have no human rights. In 1997, in a fit of pique against the Oslo Accords, Palestinian spokesman Edward Said himself blurted this out, calling Arafat "our Papa Doc" after the sadistic dictator of Haiti and complaining that there was "a total absence of law or the rule of law in the Palestinian autonomy areas."
The present Middle East conflict is said to be about the "occupied territories" the West Bank of the Jordan and the Gaza strip and about Israels refusal to "give them up." But during the first twenty years of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel did not control the West Bank. In 1950, when Jordan annexed the West Bank, there was no Arab outrage. Nor did the Middle East conflict with the Jews subside.
The reason there was no Arab outrage over the annexation of the West Bank was because Jordan is a state whose ethnic majority is Palestinian Arabs. On the other hand, the Palestinians of Jordan are disenfranchised by the ruling Hashemite minority. Despite this fact, in the years following the annexation the Palestinians displayed no interest in achieving "self-determination" in Hashemite Jordan. It is only the presence of Jews, apparently, that incites this claim. The idea that the current conflict is about "occupied territories" is only one of the many large Arab deceits -- now widely accepted -- that have distorted the history of the Middle East wars.
In 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan attacked Israel for a second time and were again defeated. It was in repelling these aggressors that Israel came to control the West Bank and the Gaza strip, as well as the oil-rich Sinai desert. Israel had every right to annex these territories captured from the aggressors a time honored ritual among nations, and in fact the precise way that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan had come into existence themselves. But Israel did not do so. On the other hand, neither did it withdraw its armies or relinquish its control.
In 1973, six years after the second Arab war against the Jews, the Arab armies again attacked Israel. The attack was led by Syria and Egypt, abetted by Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and five other countries who gave military support to the aggressors, including an Iraqi division of 18,000 men. Israel again defeated the Arab forces. Afterwards, Egypt and Egypt alone -- agreed to make a formal peace.
Interesting quotes. I could go on and on, JUST READ the article. I'd say the rather Left and Liberal David Horowitz can be trusted.
Edited by - Yerusalyim on 25 January 2003 15:7:51
-
Realist
Yeru,
i am very sorry but i have to agree with everything you said in this last post!
DAMN IT you had to edit your post!!!
A travel guide to Palestine and Syria, published in 1906 by Karl Baedeker, illustrates the fact that, even when the Islamic Ottoman Empire ruled the region, the Muslim population in Jerusalem was minimal. The book estimates the total population of the city at 60,000, of whom 7,000 were Muslims, 13,000 were Christians and 40,000 were Jews.
as i said already in response to perry's post...these numbers contradict the numbers of the only survey taken in the area at that time.
about the second article...i would imagine someone with the name Horowitz to write an biased article. (again i have to agree that there are no really neutral sources).
Edited by - realist on 25 January 2003 15:17:24
-
Yerusalyim
David Horowitz is a well known leftist here in the US.
Here are the figures I've seen for the population of Jerusalem
Lets see if these are contradicted elsewhere.- 1860: 11,000 Jews, 6,500 Muslims, 4,500 Christians
- 1906: 40,000 Jews, 13,000 Christians, 7,000 Muslims
- 1999: 633,000 Jews, 200,000 Mulsims and Christians
-
Perry
Realist,
I challenged you many, many threads ago to produce a census of Jerusalem circa 1906. All you could come up with was something for a huge geographical region of which Jerusalem was a part.
The fact remains that Jews far outnumbered Arabs in Jerusalem around this time period, even though they were persecuted with business and land restrictions from the Ottoman empire! That begs the question: If Jerusalem was so goddamned important to the Islamic faith (supposedly now the third holiest arabian site) why in the hell wasn't there more Arabs there?
The simple truth of the matter is that Arabs want to exterminat Jews. They do not want to tolerate any competition to their dictatorial, ignorant, religiously oppresed societies that are close by.
I'm beginning to think that you didn't have a Happy Hanakah this year.
Edited by - Perry on 25 January 2003 15:52:24
-
back2dafront
Yeru,
I love that arguement "it will increase the threat of retaliations " That's the same reason people in drug neighborhoods often don't report crimes. It will increase the threat of retaliation from the drug lords. Your neighbor gets killed by a drug pusher, you see the whole thing, but don't react for fear of retaliation. WHAT BS. Fact is NO MATTER WHAT we do, we will be exposed to terrorism. The object of the terrorists is to get the US to withdraw from the world stage so they can push their radical Islamic agenda. In the mean time they get stronger and pretty soon BAM! They have the power to take out the US.
WHAT BS?! Man you obviously don't know what it's like to live in one of those neighborhoods. Let me spell it out for you:
Neighbor is shot and killed by drive-by shooting.
You're on your front porch and see the whole thing happen.
Cops come and ask if you saw anything.
Two things can now happen:
IF YOU CONFESS TO SEEING IT HAPPEN:
They get the description of the vehicle and attempt to track it down, connecting it with any other leads they may have.
You voice your concerns on wanting protection, they say they will protect you.
They say you must come down to the station.
The murder(s) pay a little kid to walk down to the site of the crime and report back to them on who they saw talking to the cops.
The kid rats you out. Your life as well as your families lives are all in jeopardy now. They will do anything it takes so that you keep your mouth shut - if that means killing you and your whole family, then so be it.
IF YOU SAY YOU SAW NOTHING:
The cops leave you alone.
You and your family are safe.
The murderer(s) are safe for the moment, but who knows how long that will last. Good detectives will solve a murder case sooner or later.
The cops will provide protection if they feel you need it, and only according to what suits their schedule. In the meantime, fear grips your thoughts every breathing second.
So yeah, there's a reality check for ya bud. Put you in the middle of Compton and see if you still think this is BS.
Also, I definitely see Realists (your blatant refusal to use his real name is quite annoying) point here, and it's a point that's been made time and time again which nobody can argue against:
If you don't provoke them, you won't have to worry about them using weapons against you. Muslim terrorists are anti-American because of our interminling amongst the Arab affairs in the Middle East. They REFUSE to allow a western culture to dictate to them how to rule their countries and how to succeed. And rightly so, for any country would naturally not want to be told what to do by another country, governed by another country, etc etc. But since the U.S. wants to take over the world and control all resources and all governments, it's bound to run into trouble such as what we are currently experiencing. Only stands to reason. If we stay tucked away over here and focused on our own immediate problems, worked on creating a high-tech defense program, we'd be set. We're concerned about long range ballistic missiles reaching us right? Well use that 30 billion dollars to work on a defense program that could alert and thwart any missile within a given range - boom - problem solved.
Also, I keep reading comments about how the US is concerned about the Iraqi people. Tell me, have you ever talked w/ someone from Iraq? Have you ever heard anyone talk about their life in Iraq? If so, you've problaby heard them beg for us to come help them....?? I've never heard it or read it. Why? Because they don't want our help or feel like they need it. I'm basing this off of one speech made by a woman from Iraq, but I'm sure her thoughts well represent the general populace over there. At any rate, she was VERY adamant about them not needing our help, and to let their country work out it's own problems. So if this is the case, who are we to barge in to help them to a better government when we're not even welcome by the people we claim we want to help? If they really wanted our help, surely by now someone would have escaped the country and made this known to the world.
And then to top it off, we say we want to help them, but I can gaurantee you more of them will be killed by war than by their current leader. What kind of help that is is beyond me. If I lived over there and survived the Gulf War, I wouldn't be asking us to come back either. (look what they've had to deal with ever since).
I know your whole argument already "aren't we glad we jumped in and removed Hitler?"....blah blah blah. Of course, but that doesn't mean that Sadaam is the next Hitler - and if he started roughing up on people, he knows he'd get his arse whipped very quickly. I say let him stay over there and pretend he has this almighty nation. In the meantime, think of covert ways to get him out of his position without brute force. (assassination would be better than blowing up the whole country). Surely this can't be an impossible task for the almighty USA.
-
Perry
back2dafront,
I usually like your more reasoned posts. But these statements below are too, too ludicrous.
If you don't provoke them, you won't have to worry about them using weapons against you.
Like Kuwait? Like the Kurds found out?
If they really wanted our help, surely by now someone would have escaped the country and made this known to the world.
Where have you been living? Many scientists and others have escaped over here. That has been one of the primary sources for knowing about Saddams nuclear weapons program....he is very close to having them if he doesn't already.
I know your whole argument already "aren't we glad we jumped in and removed Hitler?"....blah blah blah. Of course, but that doesn't mean that Sadaam is the next Hitler - and if he started roughing up on people, he knows he'd get his arse whipped very quickly.
Not a Hitler type? He knows he'll get spanked if he bullys someone? Man, you have your head straight up your ass. No, he doesn't know that silly. That is why the entire planet has ordered him to disarm his WMD. You claim to understand the games that the gangstas play in ghetto neighborhoods, right? Then why do you not appreciate that Saddam has a gun to family members' heads if someone speaks out against his dictatorship? You yourself have said that you limit what you say to your own father because you know the grip of fear that the WT holds on him. You are affraid of him shunning you. This is far worse.
One Iraqi said that when someone speaks against Saddam, the entire family is executed as well as the neighbors that live on the same block. This guy makes your little neighborhood punks look like pansy choir boys. This guy is a psychopathic monster with way too much money and influence for this planet.
Edited by - Perry on 25 January 2003 17:59:55
