SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Grainne who wrote (107341)8/9/2005 7:38:06 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
Thank you - I didn't find anything searching for "haycroft commission". I see the article confirms Arabs were the aggressors and mounted a number of pogroms against Jews and Jews were afterward arrested by the British for self-defense. Then Jewish immigration was suspended. Just as it was everywhere beginning in the 1920's. If it hadn't been, there would not have been a holocaust - but then Israel would have had even more Jews. And of course, they didn't have the right to save themselves by driving another people from their land.

Specifically, that the early terrorist organizations were the future leaders of Zionist Israel, that the first terrorist bombing was by Zionist terrorists at the King David Hotel, that there were several large massacres of innocent Palestinians in the refugee camps, and that the Arabs who were living peacefully in Palestine had their lands and property stolen from them, and were shunted into refugee camps.</i
>

I would not deny these things happened but do deny they are what created the conflict. The only massacres in refugee camps I know of were committed by Lebanese Christians (who were let into the camp by the Israelis of course - a big mistake given the history of violence between the two groups) and by the Jordanian army in 1970 - they used napalm during a war between Jordan and Fatah. The Arabs were indeed living peacefully in Palestine when they weren't rioting and massacring Jews.

You also seem to believe that even though there are plenty of places for Jews to live now without discrimination or danger, they are still entitled to Israel.

Yes, because when they needed a haven desparately the world denied it to them. The holocaust need not have happened. (Check out the Evian conference, check out the restrictions on immigration around the world beginning in the 1920's, check out the St Louis, etc. etc.) Under those circumstances, they certainly had the right to insist on their own state even if that deprived another people of a big chunk of its land - which it did.

All of your protestations about Arabs killing Jews and strife between Arabs and the early Zionists are true, but they are the same sort of thing as Native Americans uprising against the invading white man. It is perfectly normal to defend your way of life and your property. The invaders--the Zionists in Israel and the colonials, settlers and pioneers in America--came violently, and it is not unexpected that there would be a violent reaction. That does not make one a savage.


You compare Palestinian terror to the Indian wars when both sides were engaging in ethnic cleansing of one another. The difference is the Indians aren't continuing the struggle via terrorism decades after the land was lost.

And the argument one happened a long long time ago doesn't wash. Take a specific example - according to a history of Jemez Pueblo by Joe Sando - that pueblo lost most of its ancestral land - 95%+ - when Pres Teddy Roosevelt declared it a national forest. They lost additional land (sheep grazing land granted to the pueblo by the Spanish) in the 1930's. These massive land losses are almost contemporous with the Palestinian land losses to Israel. Do you really think the Jemez pueblos should be sneaking bombs into restaurants and supermarkets in Santa Fe and Albuquerque today?