-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Israelis shot an Armenian Monk, attack Christians in Bethlehem
Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Amused
Elite Member
<< Well your solution sounds like the "Final Solution" >>
Hardly, and I've addressed this accusation before. It is this very fear that has kept Israel from acting as ANY OTHER nation would have in the situation they've faced for the last 50 years.
1. Hitler committed genocide and "deported" loyal German citizens to death camps.
2. Israel would only be deporting those who refuse citizenship, and not to death camps, but to surrounding Arab nations.
3. The US deports non-US citizens and criminals every day.
4. If the US were in Israel's boat pre 1900, we would have occupied the entire middle east and put the Arabs on reservations, post 1900/pre 1950 we would have occupied ALL their countries after slaughtering half their population in total war, reeducated them and installed democratic goverments a la Germany and Japan. In no freakin way would we have done things nearly as half assed as Israel has been forced to do through both the UN, and a sense of guilt brought on by their own experiences in the Holocaust. The Arabs have been extremely fortunate that Israel is so kind.
PistachioByAzul
Diamond Member
Why should Israel apologize?
irrelevant of whether one feels it is warranted or not
I don't know, because this isn't going to end anytime soon?
irrelevant of whether one feels it is warranted or not
I don't know, because this isn't going to end anytime soon?
Amused
Elite Member
<< Why should Israel apologize?
irrelevant of whether one feels it is warranted or not
I don't know, because this isn't going to end anytime soon? >>
So if I come over a smack your wife a few times a week for 50 years, you'll apologize to me?
Give me a break. The Arabs don't want apologies. They want Israel gone, nothing more, nothing less.
PistachioByAzul
Diamond Member
They want Israel gone, nothing more, nothing less.
I think maybe because the Zionists wanted them gone in the first place.
Very tgood paper written by Jews for Justice in the Middle East
I think maybe because the Zionists wanted them gone in the first place.
Very tgood paper written by Jews for Justice in the Middle East
You know, I have seen that Cactus site before. I still wonder who the real authors are.
Anyway, from that site.
"The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conferences with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase..."
So the early Zionists just wanted to buy the land up for themselves. Is that illeagal or morally wrong?
"The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists' intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine."
Interesting choice of words in that statement, "strenuously opposed" I take to mean the 1920 Jaffa and 39 Jerusalem riots in which the Arabs rioted and killed Jews.
"As noted earlier, the first Arab riots against the Jews took place in April 1920. Scarcely a year later the Arabs launched a further attack against the Jews. This time the unrest began on the Tel Aviv-Jaffa border (May 1921), reaching Jerusalem on November 2, 1921, the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. That year 43 Jews were killed and 134 injured.
The Arab attacks sharpened Jewish awareness of the need for self-defence. The inaugural conference of the Trade Union Movment (Histadrut), held in Haifa in December 1920, decided, among other things, to set up a national defence organization (the Haganah) "to safeguard the national and social content of popular defence in this country". The Haganah now came under the authority of the Histadrut and its institutions.
The 1921 riots were followed by seven years of calm, in which the Yishuv doubled in size (from 87,790 on 23 of October 1922 to 150,000 in 30 of June 1927). This lull was exploited by the Haganah for organization, training and arms' purchase. The quiet also generated a sense of complacency, and some of the Yishuv's leaders began to question the need for a national defence organization, which would require considerable funds. These leaders believed that the British Mandatory government could be relied on to defend the Yishuv in times of need. The events of 1929 proved these beliefs hopelessly misplaced.
The riots began in Jerusalem. They commenced with anti-Jewish agitation during Friday prayers at the El Aksa mosque and attacks on Jewish bystanders. The Arab rioters attacked Jews in the Old City, and from there moved on to the new Jewish quarters outside the City walls. From Jerusalem the riots proceeded to spread to other parts of the country. The worst incidents occurred in Hebron, where rioters moved from house to house, murdering any Jews they encountered. In all, 133 Jews were killed and 230 were injured in the course of one week.
"
Anyway, from that site.
"The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conferences with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase..."
So the early Zionists just wanted to buy the land up for themselves. Is that illeagal or morally wrong?
"The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists' intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine."
Interesting choice of words in that statement, "strenuously opposed" I take to mean the 1920 Jaffa and 39 Jerusalem riots in which the Arabs rioted and killed Jews.
"As noted earlier, the first Arab riots against the Jews took place in April 1920. Scarcely a year later the Arabs launched a further attack against the Jews. This time the unrest began on the Tel Aviv-Jaffa border (May 1921), reaching Jerusalem on November 2, 1921, the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. That year 43 Jews were killed and 134 injured.
The Arab attacks sharpened Jewish awareness of the need for self-defence. The inaugural conference of the Trade Union Movment (Histadrut), held in Haifa in December 1920, decided, among other things, to set up a national defence organization (the Haganah) "to safeguard the national and social content of popular defence in this country". The Haganah now came under the authority of the Histadrut and its institutions.
The 1921 riots were followed by seven years of calm, in which the Yishuv doubled in size (from 87,790 on 23 of October 1922 to 150,000 in 30 of June 1927). This lull was exploited by the Haganah for organization, training and arms' purchase. The quiet also generated a sense of complacency, and some of the Yishuv's leaders began to question the need for a national defence organization, which would require considerable funds. These leaders believed that the British Mandatory government could be relied on to defend the Yishuv in times of need. The events of 1929 proved these beliefs hopelessly misplaced.
The riots began in Jerusalem. They commenced with anti-Jewish agitation during Friday prayers at the El Aksa mosque and attacks on Jewish bystanders. The Arab rioters attacked Jews in the Old City, and from there moved on to the new Jewish quarters outside the City walls. From Jerusalem the riots proceeded to spread to other parts of the country. The worst incidents occurred in Hebron, where rioters moved from house to house, murdering any Jews they encountered. In all, 133 Jews were killed and 230 were injured in the course of one week.
"
PistachioByAzul
Diamond Member
"The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conferences with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase..."
You missed a crucial point.
"[The Ottoman Land Code of 1858] required the registration in the name of individual owners of agricultural land, most of which had never previously been registered and which had formerly been treated according to traditional forms of land tenure, in the hill areas of Palestine generally masha'a, or communal usufruct. The new law meant that for the first time a peasant could be deprived not of title to his land, which he had rarely held before, but rather of the right to live on it, cultivate it and pass it on to his heirs, which had formerly been inalienable...Under the provisions of the 1858 law, communal rights of tenure were often ignored...Instead, members of the upper classes, adept at manipulating or circumventing the legal process, registered large areas of land as theirs...The fellahin [peasants] naturally considered the land to be theirs, and often discovered that they had ceased to be the legal owners only when the land was sold to Jewish settlers by an absentee landlord...Not only was the land being purchased; its Arab cultivators were being dispossessed and replaced by foreigners who had overt political objectives in Palestine."
You missed a crucial point.
"[The Ottoman Land Code of 1858] required the registration in the name of individual owners of agricultural land, most of which had never previously been registered and which had formerly been treated according to traditional forms of land tenure, in the hill areas of Palestine generally masha'a, or communal usufruct. The new law meant that for the first time a peasant could be deprived not of title to his land, which he had rarely held before, but rather of the right to live on it, cultivate it and pass it on to his heirs, which had formerly been inalienable...Under the provisions of the 1858 law, communal rights of tenure were often ignored...Instead, members of the upper classes, adept at manipulating or circumventing the legal process, registered large areas of land as theirs...The fellahin [peasants] naturally considered the land to be theirs, and often discovered that they had ceased to be the legal owners only when the land was sold to Jewish settlers by an absentee landlord...Not only was the land being purchased; its Arab cultivators were being dispossessed and replaced by foreigners who had overt political objectives in Palestine."
Instead, members of the upper classes, adept at manipulating or circumventing the legal process, registered large areas of land as theirs...
I take that to mean the Arab upper class. So, the upper class Arabs were mistreating the "peasants". How does that make the Jews guilty? If under the laws of the land they legally purchased the land, they aren't guility.
I take that to mean the Arab upper class. So, the upper class Arabs were mistreating the "peasants". How does that make the Jews guilty? If under the laws of the land they legally purchased the land, they aren't guility.
PistachioByAzul
Diamond Member
Well it doesn't make anybody guilty, we've seen this kind of deal all over. There lacks respect for the fact that the land sold was simply claimed, over the rights of the Arabs AND Jews who were using it, and sold to the Zionist settlers.
What is the Jewish National Fund anyway? What is the explanation for the exlusion of Arabs? The point has never been to prove the Israelis as some evil mauraders, but to bring to light that this is not a one-sided issue.
What is the Jewish National Fund anyway? What is the explanation for the exlusion of Arabs? The point has never been to prove the Israelis as some evil mauraders, but to bring to light that this is not a one-sided issue.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
Asking for what? Do you say the same thing when black people have crosses burning on their lawns after moving into white neighborhoods? The Arab attitude towards the settlements is no different. They simply cannot stand having Jews living around them.
Geez, does anyone know the proper use of an analogy? Whites with a disdain for blacks moving in the neighborhood had issues with blacks living as equals. Can you honestly state that the settlements and policies/actions of Israel in support of the settlements are consistent with equality in the Occupied Territories? One cannot ignore some clear unprovoked aggression directed at some settlements but other disputes reflect the establishment of a tiered system of rights particularly in areas controlled by the IDF.
Geez, does anyone know the proper use of an analogy? Whites with a disdain for blacks moving in the neighborhood had issues with blacks living as equals. Can you honestly state that the settlements and policies/actions of Israel in support of the settlements are consistent with equality in the Occupied Territories? One cannot ignore some clear unprovoked aggression directed at some settlements but other disputes reflect the establishment of a tiered system of rights particularly in areas controlled by the IDF.
"Well it doesn't make anybody guilty, we've seen this kind of deal all over. There lacks respect for the fact that the land sold was simply claimed, over the rights of the Arabs AND Jews who were using it, and sold to the Zionist settlers. "
Who sold the land to the Jewish settlers and did they have legal title. When you buy property do you find every owner that has ever owned the land or lived on it and made sure that they were happy with the sale? I didn't think so.
"What is the Jewish National Fund anyway?"
It appears to be a form of trust fund set up by Jews to help them buy land in Israel. Jews contribute money to the trust fund and land is bought with it. I believe there is a clause that the land once bought by the trust is not to be sold.
Let's discuss exclusion.
This is G o o g l e's cache of [url]http://www.ptimes.com/issue72/palesnews.htm.[/url]
"Hebron (West Bank)- The recent killing in the West Bank of two land dealers believed to be involved in illicit land sales to Jewish settlers has once again brought to the fore the sharp and bitter confrontation between Jews and Palestinians over landóthe essence of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In one respect, the killing (as seen by Palestinians) or murder (as branded by Israeli circles) has refocused attention on frenzied Israeli efforts to acquire, by hook or by crook, as much Palestinian-owned land in the West Bank as possible before a political arrangement is reached. The matter, needless to say, acquires added emphasis now as the current Likud-led government is embarking on a frantic settlement-building campaign in and around East Jerusalem as well as throughout the West Bank.
The Palestinians, truly and rightly, view the closing-in of Jewish settlements on their villages and hamlets as a mortal threat to their future. Hence the liquidation of Farid al Bashiti and Harbi Abu Sara in Ramallah in mid-May. Both men had been widely suspected of plotting and facilitating the "sale" of Arab land in the central region of the West Bank to Gush Emunim settlers in return for huge sums of money they reportedly received as "commission" for acting as "middlemen". Bashiti was bludgeoned to death near the Ramallah police station with his hands tied and his mouth taped, while Abu Sara was shot four times in the head. It is not known for sure who killed the two land dealers, but a finger of accusation is already pointed toward the Palestinian Authority. Indeed, Israeli police arrested two persons (a man and a woman) affiliated with the Preventive Security on suspicion that they killed Bashiti, who held Israeli citizenship.
For its part, the PA expressed no compunction over the killing. Indeed, the Palestinian Ministry of Justice had earlier decided to reactivate an old but extant Jordanian law imposing the death penalty on Palestinians involved in "selling land to the enemy". The step was received with profound satisfaction throughout the occupied territories and was particularly commended by Hamas, which reportedly volunteered to provide the PA with detailed lists of "land smugglers deserving retribution for their treacheryî. At al Aqsa Mosque, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Ikrema Sabri, lashed out at "traitors, motivated by greed, who seek to kill our future in return for a sum of money." He spelled out a fatwa or "religious ruling" ascribing as apostasy to land dealers who knowingly take part in "Israeli genocidal designs against our peopleî. On 25 May, the Sheikh of Al Azhar in Egypt issued a similar fatwa on "land sales to the Jews within the Palestinian context", saying that "land dealers in this particular context are treacherous to God, His messengers and the community of believers" and therefore "deserve the death penalty.
.....
"
Who sold the land to the Jewish settlers and did they have legal title. When you buy property do you find every owner that has ever owned the land or lived on it and made sure that they were happy with the sale? I didn't think so.
"What is the Jewish National Fund anyway?"
It appears to be a form of trust fund set up by Jews to help them buy land in Israel. Jews contribute money to the trust fund and land is bought with it. I believe there is a clause that the land once bought by the trust is not to be sold.
Let's discuss exclusion.
This is G o o g l e's cache of [url]http://www.ptimes.com/issue72/palesnews.htm.[/url]
"Hebron (West Bank)- The recent killing in the West Bank of two land dealers believed to be involved in illicit land sales to Jewish settlers has once again brought to the fore the sharp and bitter confrontation between Jews and Palestinians over landóthe essence of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In one respect, the killing (as seen by Palestinians) or murder (as branded by Israeli circles) has refocused attention on frenzied Israeli efforts to acquire, by hook or by crook, as much Palestinian-owned land in the West Bank as possible before a political arrangement is reached. The matter, needless to say, acquires added emphasis now as the current Likud-led government is embarking on a frantic settlement-building campaign in and around East Jerusalem as well as throughout the West Bank.
The Palestinians, truly and rightly, view the closing-in of Jewish settlements on their villages and hamlets as a mortal threat to their future. Hence the liquidation of Farid al Bashiti and Harbi Abu Sara in Ramallah in mid-May. Both men had been widely suspected of plotting and facilitating the "sale" of Arab land in the central region of the West Bank to Gush Emunim settlers in return for huge sums of money they reportedly received as "commission" for acting as "middlemen". Bashiti was bludgeoned to death near the Ramallah police station with his hands tied and his mouth taped, while Abu Sara was shot four times in the head. It is not known for sure who killed the two land dealers, but a finger of accusation is already pointed toward the Palestinian Authority. Indeed, Israeli police arrested two persons (a man and a woman) affiliated with the Preventive Security on suspicion that they killed Bashiti, who held Israeli citizenship.
For its part, the PA expressed no compunction over the killing. Indeed, the Palestinian Ministry of Justice had earlier decided to reactivate an old but extant Jordanian law imposing the death penalty on Palestinians involved in "selling land to the enemy". The step was received with profound satisfaction throughout the occupied territories and was particularly commended by Hamas, which reportedly volunteered to provide the PA with detailed lists of "land smugglers deserving retribution for their treacheryî. At al Aqsa Mosque, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Ikrema Sabri, lashed out at "traitors, motivated by greed, who seek to kill our future in return for a sum of money." He spelled out a fatwa or "religious ruling" ascribing as apostasy to land dealers who knowingly take part in "Israeli genocidal designs against our peopleî. On 25 May, the Sheikh of Al Azhar in Egypt issued a similar fatwa on "land sales to the Jews within the Palestinian context", saying that "land dealers in this particular context are treacherous to God, His messengers and the community of believers" and therefore "deserve the death penalty.
.....
"
Amused
Elite Member
<< Asking for what? Do you say the same thing when black people have crosses burning on their lawns after moving into white neighborhoods? The Arab attitude towards the settlements is no different. They simply cannot stand having Jews living around them.
Geez, does anyone know the proper use of an analogy? Whites with a disdain for blacks moving in the neighborhood had issues with blacks living as equals. Can you honestly state that the settlements and policies/actions of Israel in support of the settlements are consistent with equality in the Occupied Territories? One cannot ignore some clear unprovoked aggression directed at some settlements but other disputes reflect the establishment of a tiered system of rights particularly in areas controlled by the IDF. >>
What??? It wasn't "equality," it was/is (sadly) that they were there, period. Does the racist term "there goes the neighborhood" mean anything to you? The vast majority of racists don't care if blacks reach equality, just not around them.
PistachioByAzul
Diamond Member
Legal title? It was the rich who decided to step in and officially claim land that "unofficially" belonged to the peasants using it, there was no consensus or compensation. "It's mine now because according to my new standards here this land is unclaimed, so what are you gonna do about it."
has refocused attention on frenzied Israeli efforts to acquire, by hook or by crook, as much Palestinian-owned land in the West Bank as possible before a political arrangement is reached.
Pretty sleazy. What was the point of that excerpt, it only helped what I was saying?
has refocused attention on frenzied Israeli efforts to acquire, by hook or by crook, as much Palestinian-owned land in the West Bank as possible before a political arrangement is reached.
Pretty sleazy. What was the point of that excerpt, it only helped what I was saying?
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
What??? It wasn't "equality," it was/is (sadly) that they were there, period. Does the racist term "there goes the neighborhood" mean anything to you? The vast majority of racists don't care if blacks reach equality, just not around them.
I'm not sure if you're old enough or have any clue about US history but racism has very little to do with "there goes the neighborhood". The master and his family lived only yards away from the slave quarters. The house slaves fixed the meals often with the master's children in tow. And if you happened to be attractive many slaveholders got REALLY close. After Emancipation blacks legally had all of the rights and prospectively all of the opportunities afforded whites THEN it became necessary to create artificial systems of separation. Jim Crow and all its derivations were designed to deny opportunity b/c industrious blacks were successful just like industrious whites.
Arguably the same phenomena is at work in poor, predominantly minority neighborhoods where some members of the community lash out at immigrants that establish businesses. Many would not care if a Puerto Rican, Laotian, Jew, or Croat lived next door with a family of five on a welfare check. But these same people can be quite contemptuous when immigrants create a nice living through hard work.
By definition racists believe they are inherently superior or better than another group. What do you think happens to someone's world view when the bigger house, more expensive car, and smarter kids are the inferior race next door? Spend a little time reviewing US history and you will see that the movement against minorities has very little to do with us not belonging but a lot to do with maintaining the fantasy that God made the White man and then everybody else.
I'm not sure if you're old enough or have any clue about US history but racism has very little to do with "there goes the neighborhood". The master and his family lived only yards away from the slave quarters. The house slaves fixed the meals often with the master's children in tow. And if you happened to be attractive many slaveholders got REALLY close. After Emancipation blacks legally had all of the rights and prospectively all of the opportunities afforded whites THEN it became necessary to create artificial systems of separation. Jim Crow and all its derivations were designed to deny opportunity b/c industrious blacks were successful just like industrious whites.
Arguably the same phenomena is at work in poor, predominantly minority neighborhoods where some members of the community lash out at immigrants that establish businesses. Many would not care if a Puerto Rican, Laotian, Jew, or Croat lived next door with a family of five on a welfare check. But these same people can be quite contemptuous when immigrants create a nice living through hard work.
By definition racists believe they are inherently superior or better than another group. What do you think happens to someone's world view when the bigger house, more expensive car, and smarter kids are the inferior race next door? Spend a little time reviewing US history and you will see that the movement against minorities has very little to do with us not belonging but a lot to do with maintaining the fantasy that God made the White man and then everybody else.
EngineNr9
Legal title? It was the rich who decided to step in and officially claim land that "unofficially" belonged to the peasants using it, there was no consensus or compensation. "It's mine now because according to my new standards here this land is unclaimed, so what are you gonna do about it."
It was the rich ARABS who decided to step in....
So bitch about the Arabs screwing each other. Not the Israelis that bought the land.
It won't be the first time the Arabs have screwed a group and tried to blame it on the Israelis. Look at the conditions of the refugee camps when Egypt and Syria had control of them. I've heard their conditions improved under the Israelis.
Legal title? It was the rich who decided to step in and officially claim land that "unofficially" belonged to the peasants using it, there was no consensus or compensation. "It's mine now because according to my new standards here this land is unclaimed, so what are you gonna do about it."
It was the rich ARABS who decided to step in....
So bitch about the Arabs screwing each other. Not the Israelis that bought the land.
It won't be the first time the Arabs have screwed a group and tried to blame it on the Israelis. Look at the conditions of the refugee camps when Egypt and Syria had control of them. I've heard their conditions improved under the Israelis.
The Palestinian Refugees
Just one example, admittedly biased but read the bottom section.. Arab Attitudes Toward the Refugees.
I have seen others if you want me to search for them, let me know.
Just one example, admittedly biased but read the bottom section.. Arab Attitudes Toward the Refugees.
I have seen others if you want me to search for them, let me know.
PistachioByAzul
Diamond Member
The same way Africans helped to sell other Africans as slaves to the Europeans. It doesn't absolve the Europeans of anything that they were helped by a few sellouts trying to save their own asses and make a dime on the side.
Palestinean land has and is being sold to exclusive Jewish interests that will make them second class citizens on it. Would it be worth fighting for if it were you?
Palestinean land has and is being sold to exclusive Jewish interests that will make them second class citizens on it. Would it be worth fighting for if it were you?
EngineNr9
disingenuous (dîs´în-jèn´y¡-es) adjective
Not straightforward or candid; crafty: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who . . . exemplified . . . the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
Buying land vs. buying slaves. See above.
disingenuous (dîs´în-jèn´y¡-es) adjective
Not straightforward or candid; crafty: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who . . . exemplified . . . the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
Buying land vs. buying slaves. See above.
PistachioByAzul
Diamond Member
No direct comparison was made, just making a point about the Arab sellouts. You can't get around the fact that some rich aristocrats of the Ottoman empire just went in and stuck a flag on land that was already being used, just because they had the power to, and then turned around and sold it to the Zionists as "official paper holding" absentee landlords. How would you feel?
PistachioByAzul
Diamond Member
Wrong thread, not nice anyway.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
