60th Anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre, April 9 - 11

  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Apr 11, 2009 10:05 PM GMT
    Perhaps the best brief, but objective evaluation of the massacre at
    Deir Yassin appeared in a letter to the New York Times, signed by
    Albert Einstein and 27 other leading Jewish intellectuals (see below). Menachen Begin, the former leader of the Irgun, was in the United States raising money for his political advancement. The Irgun was neck deep in the Deir Yassin massacre, and Irgun, all agree, was a terrorist organization which targeted civilians. When Israel became a state, most Irgun members joined the regular Israeli army.

    -------------------------
    December 4, 1948
    To the editor of the New York Times:


    Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our time is the
    emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom
    Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its
    organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the
    Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and
    following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing,
    chauvinist organization in Palestine.
    The current visit of Menachen Begin, leader of this party, to the
    United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of
    American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to
    cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United
    States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to
    welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism
    throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin's
    political record and perspectives, could add their names and support
    to the movement he represents.
    Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial
    contributions, public manifestations in Begin's behalf, and the
    creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of
    America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must
    be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his
    movement.
    The public avowals of Begin's party are no guide whatever to its
    actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-
    imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine
    of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party
    betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it
    may be expected to do in the future.


    Attack on Arab Village


    A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir
    Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish
    lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab
    bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (The
    New York Times), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which
    was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its
    inhabitants - 240 men, women and children - and kept a few of them
    alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of
    the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency
    sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the
    terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this
    massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign
    correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and
    the general havoc at Deir Yassin.
    The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of
    the Freedom Party.
    Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of
    ultra-nationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like
    other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have
    themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their
    stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist
    model.
    During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL
    and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish
    community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults
    were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster
    methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the
    terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.
    The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the
    constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land,
    built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense
    activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute,
    and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.


    Discrepancies Seen


    The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and
    his party and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the
    imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable
    stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and
    British alike), and misprepresentation are means, and a "Leader State"
    is the
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 11, 2009 11:03 PM GMT
    What is your purpose in presenting all this background info? Despite his dark early beginnings, Begin was the Israeli Prime Minister who signed the historic Camp David Peace Accord with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, brokered by US President Jimmie Carter. Both Begin & Sadat subsequently won the Nobel Peace Prize.
  • dglater

    Posts: 255

    Apr 11, 2009 11:33 PM GMT
    i find it amazing that any "adult" that is "rational" still blames one side over the other.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2009 12:30 AM GMT
    I think Jesus would be very sad that you felt it necessary to express your anti-semitic conspiracy theories on the eve of his re-birthday.

    BTW, did you put up your Easter Tree?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2009 12:36 AM GMT
    How is this relevant? This is a complete waste of time
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Apr 13, 2009 6:07 AM GMT
    McGay saidI think Jesus would be very sad that you felt it necessary to express your anti-semitic conspiracy theories on the eve of his re-birthday.

    BTW, did you put up your Easter Tree?


    I can't help it that the massacre occurred on this date sixty years ago, it's history.

    All I did was reprint a letter by Albert Einstein and 27 other Jewish intellectuals which was printed by the New York Times in 1948.

    Why do you think this is a theory? The letter is available at:

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/Einstein_NYTimes_Israel.html

    Do you think Albert Einstein and 27 other Jewish intellectuals were anti-semitic?

    When I was growing up, Jewish children were encouraged to raise money to pay for planting a tree in Israel. I raised the necessary amount of money, and I got a nice certificate. Later I learned that the reason for planting the trees was to erase all trace of the 400+ Palestinian villages which were depopulated when conquered by the Israeli military in 1948.

    The purpose of my post was to attempt to provide some balance to discussion of the problem in the Middle East, and to point out that all sides have practiced terrorism. I am not blaming one side or the other. I am just presenting a viewpoint which is normally censored in the U.S.
  • dglater

    Posts: 255

    Apr 13, 2009 11:06 PM GMT
    "I am just presenting a viewpoint which is normally censored in the U.S. "

    no its ignored for being idiotic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 13, 2009 11:51 PM GMT
    dglater said"I am just presenting a viewpoint which is normally censored in the U.S. "

    no its ignored for being idiotic.

    LMAO!!! Very little that is political in the US is censored in the strict sense of the word. But it may not be published and given wide exposure, if it is too stupid & silly to be taken seriously. That is usually a free-press editorial decision, based on the merits of the story, not a governmental one.

    (Oh, maybe I should amend that. FOX News in the US is the exception to the integrity of the free-press rule, where deliberate lying forms the backbone of their programming. But even then, the fact that their relentless & obsessive anti-Democratic hysteria isn't censored, serves as proof that official US censorship does not exist)
  • dglater

    Posts: 255

    Apr 14, 2009 10:02 PM GMT
    lol your so full of it, i cornered you in the other thread, and proved you wrong time after time, but keep spreading your idiotic crap and keep using the word "Zionist" with out even knowing the true definition of it.

    people like you who spread crap and separation are the problem in the middle east, not part of the solution.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Apr 15, 2009 9:27 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidWhat is your purpose in presenting all this background info? Despite his dark early beginnings, Begin was the Israeli Prime Minister who signed the historic Camp David Peace Accord with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, brokered by US President Jimmie Carter. Both Begin & Sadat subsequently won the Nobel Peace Prize.


    Begin unfortunately refused Sadat's suggestion to end Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, resulting in continuing violence over the next 30 years which continues to the present day. Thus, a historic opportunity for peace was discarded so that the Israelis could continue to dispossess the Palestinian people and expand illegal settlements and roads for Jews only, again, which continues to the present day. Without American economic aid dollars, Israel could not afford to build additional settlements.

    Later, Begin was still Prime Minister, and thus ultimately responsible for, the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon which climaxed in the massacre of thousands of women and children at Sabra and Chatila, two Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut. The Israeli Kahan commission, an investigative body to determine the cause of the massacre, concluded that Begin's Minister of Defense, Ariel Sharon, "bears personal responsibility," and recommended Sharon's removal from the Israeli cabinet. Begin did not fire him, and initially Sharon did not resign. Only after the death of an Israeli peace demonstrator, killed by a hand grenade tossed into a dispersing Peace Now demonstration, did Sharon quit as Defense Minister, but he remained in the Begin cabinet as a Minister without Portfolio.

    My purpose in presenting all this is to show that respected Jewish sources, such as Albert Einstein, verified the massacre at Deir Yassin 60 years ago. There have been attempts to whitewash Deir Yassin, such as the ZOA's attempt made 20 years after the event.

    Also, my purpose was to show that Begin and terrorists of his ilk were no better or worse that today's Palestinian terrorists (or Palestinian "freedom fighters" depending on your point of view.) Begin once said, "without Deir Yassin, there would be no Israel." It is no surprise that the Palestinians would turn to terrorism after the Israelis used it so successfully.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2009 12:07 AM GMT
    Deir Yassin - may they Rest In Peace.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2009 12:14 AM GMT
    Samer - I agree that 'permanent majority' Zionists are racist and the Zionists in the West Bank should be ashamed of themselves.

    But some Zionists supported binationalism. I looked them up when I was talking about the One State Solution with you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashomer_Hatzair
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapam

    So the trouble is the word means different things to different people.

    I thought the article was interesting though. 'Jewish Ulster'.

    I support binationalism as a long term democratic goal (a One State Solution will probably happen in Ireland in our life time), but I think the two state solution will have to come first.
  • dglater

    Posts: 255

    Apr 16, 2009 2:46 AM GMT
    if you make an argument make it, but dont copy and paste shit b/c i can do it to.

    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
    ". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    majority of Jews are Zionist, except a few cases. as being Zionist has hundreds of different political categories.


  • dglater

    Posts: 255

    Apr 16, 2009 3:00 AM GMT
    samerphx your a bigot, and extremely close minded, you just demonstrated that by saying

    "I understand you are an Israeli and grew up to be a Zionist."

    you demonstrate that any argument or opinion that is against yours is false and must be b/c of "Zionist brainwash"

    you read one side arguments and present one sided evidence like that video "occupation 101" and in your distorted perspective of reality you find it to be the sole and only truth.

    to further your narrow minded thinking process you search for more one sided evidence to support your false perception of reality by finding "Jews" who support your extreme thought process, and by finding those Jews you believe that you are "open minded"

    i never once said "you think this way b/c you are Palestinian"..."Therefore all Palestinians are......" i responded to every argument you presented, and i didn't care if your Palestinian or not. until you stopped posting and bailed out.
    ....But before you did that, you at least had some balls to admit you were wrong.
    Yes that post was my mistake. It wasn't under the Ottoman Empire. It was under the British rules. And yes you are right about the Sparadi or Mizrahi Jew from any part of the world and be a ZionistSamerPhx


    and i dont see a point of arguing about 1or2 states as i laid out a full argument for it in the previous thread, which you decided to stopped posting (after being proved wrong)

    ty
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2009 10:42 AM GMT
    dglater and Samer - I think you've got off on the wrong foot, because you're only disagreeing about what Zionism is.

    English nationalism can either be progressive (pre-Blair Labour party) or racist (BNP fascist party). Nationalism always has two wings.

    I can identify with meretz and the kibbutz movement, but I can't identify with the West Bank settlers or the recent attack on Gaza.

    dglater, here's my problem. [Zionism 1] On the one hand Israel is an incredible country, it has provided security to millions of Jewish people from all round the world, it has made the desert bloom and it is has some really lovely politics like meretz. It has an amazing intellectual and artistic culture and world class universities. I'd like to visit Tel Aviv and I'd like to spend some time in a kibbutz if it is dedicated to peace.

    But on the other hand, [Zionism 2] Israel killed so many people in Gaza that I was almost screaming at the television (that's how I got involved in this whole debate). I hate the check-points and home demolitions and it looks like Israel is becoming an increasingly right-wing country. I don't understand what the West Bank settlers think they are doing and I think it is fair to describe Gaza as a 'Prison Camp' and the West Bank as 'apartheid.'

    Zionism is responsible for both those Israels. The reason Samer supports a One State Solution, is because he is a nice guy who thinks it is the only just way of moving forward while treating everyone as equal.

    The more I think about it, the more I think that one day, a one state solution is inevitable, because there will one day be a Palestinian majority inside Israel. A similar thing has happened in Northern Ireland, where I expect the catholics to become a majority and vote for a United Ireland. I think the two state solution should come first though and then both sides should work towards democratically achieving some way of sharing the land together. It will have to be imaginative because simple 'majority rule' doesn't work very well in ethnically divided places.
  • dglater

    Posts: 255

    Apr 16, 2009 2:56 PM GMT
    samerphx saidthe qoute is a hoax, a fraud. There is no evidence MLK wrote or say that.
    http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_article=369

    CAMERA, which is pro-Israeli said that it's a fraud.

    beshai.jpg


    Martin Luther King is said to have replied to a black student who criticized "Zionists" at a 1968 dinner, "Don't talk like that! When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism."[35] The accuracy of the quote has been verified by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Democrat and notable civil rights leader, who represents the 5th Congressional District of Georgia. [36] The claim that this was stated in a letter is widely discounted. However, the accuracy of the quotation itself is now generally accepted.
    -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#International
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lost... Zionism should not be used today to discuss the current events, using the word Jews, Israelis, Jewish Settlers, Main Stream Israelis. are just as fine and even more accurate to describe the situation in the middle east. Its just that now days people say a lot of racist and hatred but they just replace the word "Jews" with "Zionist"

    look majority of jews believe in israel right to exist, with a few exception coming from religious extremist. (Neturei Karta) therefor when anyone says "oh your a zionist and they are real jews" i would usually say... then suicide bombers are the real Palestinians? or real Muslims? do you see the analogy here?
    Zionism=Jewish People.

    Zionism has NOTHING to do with Palestinians, Muslims, Arabs.... its just a believe to recreate Israel, Zionism was not meant to cause any wars, occupation or conflicts. Lets stop the ignorance of using the word to describe something that has nothing to do with the word.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    now let me say this about the "one state" NO! i wrote a full replay in the other thread but ill repeat some here.

    Jews are modern mostly secular people, we enjoy our freedom and prosperity in israel, we enjoy our freedom of speech and freedom of religion. we enjoy our democracy. There is not a single arab country that demonstrated simler values to israel.

    Example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index
    Israel: 34
    Arab country: Libya 59

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
    Israel: 38
    Arab country: 85 Palestinian Authority

    Legatum Prosperity Index
    Israel 19
    UAE 28

    so you wanna destroy this great democracy of israel and bring in a new majority of Palestinians? who would change the government and change probably everything else in the country?
    FORGET about it, do you think any israeli would ever in his life agree to this?
    The Palestinians will have their own country in the west bank and gaza, and they can prosper there, Israelis dont need anther 1920's 1930's conflict.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 16, 2009 5:10 PM GMT
    Dglater - I am (to an extent) an English nationalist. Here's a few lines from the English national anthem 'Jerusalem.'


    I will not cease from mental fight,
    Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
    Till we have built Jerusalem
    In England's green and pleasant land.


    You'll see it's actually a Zionist hymn! So, as an English nationalist, like the Jews (and Palestinians) in Israel, I identify with my land and culture as an important part of who I am.

    However, I also think that people have no exclusive rights over land. We have to share it with other people.

    I would accept an ethnic English minority in England, this is probably not a mainstream view, but I think it's the correct one. That's why I think the One State Solution is something to aim for. It shouldn't be forced on anyone, but it is a noble goal, people should be able to live together. The two state solution will probably have to come first.

    The second part of that argument is that eventually there will be a Jewish minority inside Israel - then there will have to be a One State Solution because there is no moral alternative.

    DglaterZionism has NOTHING to do with Palestinians, Muslims, Arabs.... its just a belief to recreate Israel


    Now you put it like this, I can agree, because it just means 'right of Jews to live in Israel, or Jewish nationalism,' it has nothing to say about displacing other people.

  • dglater

    Posts: 255

    Apr 16, 2009 10:21 PM GMT
    ok can you create an argument, why 1 state will work better then 2 states?
    analyze the current situation, how it will lead to the results you think will happen. and lets have it as realistic as possible, not Utopian

    and i am asking this just so i can understand your point of view better, as i expressed why i think its a hugely bad idea to aim for 1 state.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 17, 2009 12:08 AM GMT
    dglater saidok can you create an argument, why 1 state will work better then 2 states?
    analyze the current situation, how it will lead to the results you think will happen. and lets have it as realistic as possible, not Utopian

    and i am asking this just so i can understand your point of view better, as i expressed why i think its a hugely bad idea to aim for 1 state.


    Sure, first I think it is a long term goal. It most certainly isn't something that should happen over night. I think if Israel, Gaza and the West Bank were merged into one country immediately there would be terrible fighting. It would be a nightmare scenario.

    I think that the Jewish people and the Palestinian people have an equal claim on the land. When I say equal, I mean equal, I don't secretly think one side has a better claim than the other. Both groups have got to find a way of sharing it. America shows that different races and ethnicities and religions can live together peaceably, the same is true in parts of the UK like London (but not Belfast).

    I also think that long term, the two state solution is doomed to fail. The Palestinian Arab population is going to grow at a much faster rate than the Jewish one. This is a really important point. If it wasn't for this, arguably the two state solution would be workable long term, so long as it was accepted by all sides.

    So, I think there should be a long term plan that goes something like this;

    1) Two state phase now
    2) A truth an reconciliation process.
    3) A long term goal for both countries to merge back into one, achieved through the ballot box.

    I should say I would only support a one state solution if I think Jewish security could be guaranteed. All sides would have to commit very firmly to human rights norms and rule of law government. I also think America and the EU should commit a lot of money to improving quality of life in Gaza and the West Bank, this should take the sting out of its radicalism.

    It's something to aim for, it might not be possible, but if all sides aimed for it, I think it might help bring an end to the violence.


  • dglater

    Posts: 255

    Apr 17, 2009 12:17 AM GMT
    ok

    A. now why do you feel that israelis cant live happy under the 67 border and Palestinians cant live happy in west bank gaza and east Jerusalem? under 2 different countries who will slowly develop a friendlier relationship trade enjoy friendship from EU and USA?

    B. I dont mean to skip subjects but... do you feel like the former Yugoslavian countries should merge to one state? or kossovo should go back under Serbian rule?

    See, what i under understand in your argument, is if you see a future with 2 nations in the beginning of the process who dropped all hostility towards each other, why risk that great situation and decide to merge them as one? what makes you think the 2 nations with, 2 different: Religions, Races, Languages, Values and Norms, would be wise to combine them?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 17, 2009 12:35 AM GMT
    DglaterA. now why do you feel that israelis cant live happy under the 67 border and Palestinians cant live happy in west bank gaza and east Jerusalem? under 2 different countries who will slowly develop a friendlier relationship trade enjoy friendship from EU and USA?


    Do you think the Palestinian Arab side will ever accept this? If they will accept it, perhaps it will work. Britain and the Republic of Ireland are now friendly countries after a long and bitter war. Britain used to claim sovereignty over all of Ireland.

    I think the two state solution might bring peace, but then you've got the demographic issue of an increasing Palestinian population in Israel.

    DglaterB. I dont mean to skip subjects but... do you feel like the former Yugoslavian countries should merge to one state? or kossovo should go back under Serbian rule?


    This is a good point, you'd be mad to support making the Balkans one country again, but in the former Yugoslavia the populations are no longer really mixed up, so it's probably best to create ethnic states. This isn't the case in Israel, so we're back to the demographics point.

    Dglaterwhat makes you think the 2 nations with, 2 different: Religions, Races, Languages, Values and Norms, would be wise to combine them?


    America shows that this is possible, so does London. You need prosperity and rule of law government to make it work though.

    (I don't know, maybe I'm a little out my depth, I've been chatting about it on the net for a couple of months, so it's about time I read some books. Aiming for a one state solution seems like the most optimistic way forward though. A noble goal.)
  • dglater

    Posts: 255

    Apr 17, 2009 4:29 AM GMT
    well here is my reply to you since your major point was

    "do you think Palestinian Arabs will accept this" my answer is Yes, i think most Palestinians will agree.

    The return question is, do you think most Israels will agree to 1 state solution?
    and my friend i am very liberal, but HELL NO.

    i think the situation in USA is quite different, as its mixed with Many different nationalities, religions... while in a once state solution you will have 2 groups competing with each other.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 17, 2009 7:02 AM GMT
    For starters, the events of Deir Yassin were greatly exaggerated for propaganda purposes.
    The unintended consequence was to frighten the Arabs of Mandate Palestine and make them flee.



    Note how the political descendants of those who lied about this then continue to lie about this today.
    For the same purpose - to, uber alles - demonize Israel. Damn the truth.


    samerphx> Palestinians themselves are Semitics

    FAIL. If you want to use the modern term "Semitic", then it refers to a language group. Palestinian Arabs speak Arabic - which is a Semitic language.

    If you want to use the Biblical anthropology and if you still are claiming, despite the evidence, that Palestinian Arabs descend from the Canaanites, then they are Hamites (the Canaantes were not Semitic by that definition).


    As usual, Samer the Spammer does his thing, posting his lies-for-the-cause:

    SP> since the mid-1980s, Israeli historians have documented the systematic ethnic cleansing and expulsion of Palestinians perpetrated by the Zionist militias in 1947-48. ...At least 700,000 Palestinians had been driven out of their homes.

    Except that the conclusion of the historians is that the majority of these 700,000 (not millions as Samer and others have claimed) were not "driven out" or "expelled" or "ethnically cleansed" but FLED. They FLED the Arab-initiated war (so much for Zionists being the "root cause" of violence, etc).



    tokugawa> Begin unfortunately refused Sadat's suggestion to end Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, resulting in continuing violence over the next 30 years which continues to the present day.

    LOL. It was the PLO (and all other Arab leaders) who rejected President Carter's invitation to attend the peace conference at Camp David.

    Consider further that not only was Sadat assassinated, but Egypt (the largest Arab country) was expelled from the Arab League.


    tokugawa> I am just presenting a viewpoint which is normally censored in the U.S.

    ROTFL. By quoting an article that appeared in the New York Time?
    (Perhaps he didn't realize that NY is in the USA?)


    tokugawa> The Israeli Kahan commission, an investigative body to determine the cause of the massacre, concluded that Begin's Minister of Defense, Ariel Sharon, "bears personal responsibility,"

    The Kahan Commission concluded that he was "indirectly" responsible. Not for perpetrating the massacre (as propagandists like to claim) but for not preventing it,

    It's curious that tokugawa only seems to care about the 700-800 casualties at Sabra and Shatila but not the other 150,000 people who died in Lebanon's lengthy civil war (most of which had nothing to do with Israel). Indeed, I can't help but wonder if he even knows (or cares) that the same cames and Burj el Barajneh suffered much worse devestation a few years later (never made the western press since Israel wasn't involved). Can help but wonder if he knows about the Syrian massacre of 15,000 - 60,000 people at Hama (same time period) or if he cares how many people died in violence in the camps in recent years.

    The picture that develops isn't one of tokugawa the humanitarian, but of tokugawa the anti-Israel propagandist.


    tokugawa> My purpose in presenting all this is to show that respected Jewish sources, such as Albert Einstein, verified the massacre at Deir Yassin

    Einstein was in no position to "verify" anything.
    Very few "Jewish sources" deny that a massacre took place.
    Of courrse, there is a lot more to the story and some like to put it in context.
    But not tokugawa, whose motive for this post obviously wasn't what he claims.
    Which strengthens the theory that he's just another cheap anti-Israel propagandist.
    But then, everyone already seemed to reach that conclusion already.
  • tokugawa

    Posts: 945

    Apr 17, 2009 8:24 AM GMT
    dglater said

    Zionism has NOTHING to do with Palestinians


    1. Zionism was the movement of Jews to Palestine to establish a Jewish state. The Zionists made no secret that the existing Arab culture would be changed into a Jewish culture, and the official language would be changed from Arabic to Hebrew. The claim by the Zionists that Palestine was "a land without a people" was untrue.

    2. In order to establish a Jewish state, the non-Jews had to be removed. Zionist leaders felt that a Jewish state must have at least 80% Jews, so that a minority could never come to power.

    3. In 1948, 750,000 non-Jewish civilians became refugees because the Zionists would not let them return to their homes at the end of the fighting. Some of the Palestinians were forced out at gunpoint, some Palestinians left voluntarily; some Palestinians were merely out of the country on business at the time. None were permitted to return. Not only that, but the Zionists confiscated their property and never paid any compensation to the owners.

    4. Israel has received hundreds of millions of dollars from Germany as reparations for the losses the Jews suffered under the Nazis. Israel has not paid one dollar in reparations to the Palestinians. Under Israeli Prime Minister Barak's alleged "generous offer" at Camp David, the Palestinian refugees would forever abandon the right of return to their homes or to receive any compensation, thereby legalizing the theft of their property by Israel. Barak's plan would allow Palestinians to received compensation from other countries for the losses inflicted by the Zionists. Barak's Camp David offer was not very generous at all.

    5. It is illegal under international law to prohibit the return of refugees to their homes after the fighting stops. Israel has been defying international law for 60 years.

    6. Torture is also illegal under international law, but the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that torture is permitted in Israel, as long as it is "moderate" torture. Like being "slightly" pregnant?

    7. Israel permits arrests without charges which can result in six months in prison. At the end of the six months, another six month term in jail is allowed for the prisoners who has not even been charged with a crime.

    8. The U.S. attacked Bosnia to allow refugees to return to their homes. The U.S. attacked Serbia so that the Kosovo refugees could return to their homes. If the U.S. feels ethnic cleansing is so wrong, why doesn't the U.S. pressure Israel to allow the return of the Palestinian refugees?

    9. In order to join the United Nations, Israel agreed "in principle" to allow the Palestinian refugees to return. Almost immediately after Israel obtained U.N. membership, she changed her mind. Every year for the last 60 years, the U.N. passes a resolution urging Israel to obey international law and allow the return of the Palestinian refugees. Every year Israel ignores the U.N.

    10. Even though Jews made up only 1/3 of the population of British Mandate Palestine at the time, the 1947 Partition Resolution gave the Jewish state 55% of the country. After the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the Jewish state had 78% of British Mandate Palestine. After the 1967 war, Israel began to illegally colonize the other 22% of Palestine.

    11. The United Nations ignored its own charter in passing the 1947 partition resolution, since the people of British Mandate Palestine were not allowed to vote on their future. The Jews knew that with only 1/3 of the population, they would lose a democratic vote, and therefore they needed an imposed decision from outsiders to establish a Jewish state.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 17, 2009 8:46 AM GMT
    dglater saidwell here is my reply to you since your major point was

    "do you think Palestinian Arabs will accept this" my answer is Yes, i think most Palestinians will agree.

    The return question is, do you think most Israels will agree to 1 state solution?
    and my friend i am very liberal, but HELL NO.

    i think the situation in USA is quite different, as its mixed with Many different nationalities, religions... while in a once state solution you will have 2 groups competing with each other.


    Actually I've wondered this too. Perhaps a state with just two groups can't work, but a state with lots of groups can work better.