Discussion
JagLover said:
deadslow said:
I should say that, by their actions, the Israelis are condemning themselves to be bombed and hated for a generation.
Given that the "peace process" started an intensive suicide bombing campaign I think the Israelis might be forgiven to conclude that security comes from walls, and securing the international borders of Gaza and the West bank, rather than Palestinian goodwill. league67 said:
For simpletons, of course it is, it's the only way to make sense of the world. How do you put your bra right way up in the morning is anyone's guess.
Oh dear,getting to you again aren't I...Still waiting...there's still only two possible answers,instead of mudslinging just answer,it really isn't hard.You wont though because you know where Im going to go with it...
NoNeed said:
The Palestinians can blame them.
Trust should be a two way street. Israel have and continue to take what is not theirs. Israel wont accept a two state agreement as they can no longer then expand their own territory and form new settlements. As soon as Palestine has an internationally recognised border as a sovereign state Israel could no longer continue to encroach on that land.
Have a look how many time Israel has Violated international law yet is still allowed to sit at the table where those laws are created.
Trust you say.
I wouldn't trust an Israeli as far as I could throw one.
George Galloway summed it up brilliantly, The fact he entered big brother and wore a cat suit does not alter or change any of the facts he discusses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0gEzPG82pc
George Galloway is an odious man,with a biased political agenda,and the personal morals of a tomcat.Trust should be a two way street. Israel have and continue to take what is not theirs. Israel wont accept a two state agreement as they can no longer then expand their own territory and form new settlements. As soon as Palestine has an internationally recognised border as a sovereign state Israel could no longer continue to encroach on that land.
Have a look how many time Israel has Violated international law yet is still allowed to sit at the table where those laws are created.
Trust you say.
I wouldn't trust an Israeli as far as I could throw one.
George Galloway summed it up brilliantly, The fact he entered big brother and wore a cat suit does not alter or change any of the facts he discusses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0gEzPG82pc
The fact that you admire him and use lazy generalisations is just the type of person to whom he has appeal.
How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously ,you debase the tragedy of the Palestinians and Israelis.
Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King are icons ,Galloway is not fit to lick their shoes.
avinalarf said:
NoNeed said:
The Palestinians can blame them.
Trust should be a two way street. Israel have and continue to take what is not theirs. Israel wont accept a two state agreement as they can no longer then expand their own territory and form new settlements. As soon as Palestine has an internationally recognised border as a sovereign state Israel could no longer continue to encroach on that land.
Have a look how many time Israel has Violated international law yet is still allowed to sit at the table where those laws are created.
Trust you say.
I wouldn't trust an Israeli as far as I could throw one.
George Galloway summed it up brilliantly, The fact he entered big brother and wore a cat suit does not alter or change any of the facts he discusses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0gEzPG82pc
George Galloway is an odious man,with a biased political agenda,and the personal morals of a tomcat.Trust should be a two way street. Israel have and continue to take what is not theirs. Israel wont accept a two state agreement as they can no longer then expand their own territory and form new settlements. As soon as Palestine has an internationally recognised border as a sovereign state Israel could no longer continue to encroach on that land.
Have a look how many time Israel has Violated international law yet is still allowed to sit at the table where those laws are created.
Trust you say.
I wouldn't trust an Israeli as far as I could throw one.
George Galloway summed it up brilliantly, The fact he entered big brother and wore a cat suit does not alter or change any of the facts he discusses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0gEzPG82pc
The fact that you admire him and use lazy generalisations is just the type of person to whom he has appeal.
How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously ,you debase the tragedy of the Palestinians and Israelis.
Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King are icons ,Galloway is not fit to lick their shoes.
But like I ask if you have previously seen it, just point out where it is wrong.
JagLover said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
avinalarf said:
The Palestinians should have a recognised viable Homeland.
The Israelis should have a recognised viable Homeland.
That's absolutely right.The Israelis should have a recognised viable Homeland.
I think the crux of the problem is Israel a scared to let the Palestinians have a viable homeland so are determined to stop them having one because the Palestinian leadership does not accept that Israel should have a viable homeland and would use any Palestinian homeland as a base from which to try and destroy any Israeli homeland.
And Israel's fears on that front are fully justified.
Like many others I supported the Israeli decision to evacuate the territory in full. But all that has happened as a consequence is the taking over of Gaza by extremists who launch rockets into Israel which then creates periodic wars. If all that will happen in the West bank if Israel pulls out is more of the same then you have a recipe for unending conflict. Bearing in mind as well it will be far easier to move weapons into the west bank than the Gaza strip if Israel is no longer controlling the borders.
And Israel has been responsible for the resulting periodic wars since - an incursion, a shooting, missile attacks - usually apparently to send a 'politcal message', but provoking an inevitable response. Even the current catastrophe was initiated by Israel, on the basis of a blatant face-to-camera lie: that Hamas were responsible for the abduction and murder of the three Israeli teenagers.
3
Indeed. Ethnic cleansing in this case is the systematic and forced removal of the members of an ethnic group from communities in order to change the ethnic composition of a given region.
This begs the question what do pro-Israel revisionists think Zionism is? If they wish to pass Zionism off as an inclusive ideology, then why were the Zionists so adamantly against the refugees right of return? They know as well as Ben-Gurion did and Benny Morris does, that the Jewish State does not want Arabs.
So, why are the ardent pro-Israel camp on here trying to hide what the beloved founding father Ben-Gurion said, wrote and wished? Is it a case of sweeping it under the carpet, exercise some "damage control negationism" in line with the holocaust negationists, because this is what it looks like when you deny the ethnic cleansing that was implemented through the Dalet Plan and lasted six month. At the end of the period more than half of Palestine’s native population, over 750,000 people, had been uprooted, 531 villages had been destroyed, and 11 urban neighbourhoods had been emptied of their inhabitants.
Here's the original David Ben-Gurion letter for those who can read Hebrew:
http://palestine-studies.org/files/hebrelett.pdf
The letter is like a rallying cry revealing that he won't be satisfied with anything less than the whole of Israel being Jewish.(My bold)
“The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.”
And in case you are reading something else in Ben-Gurion's vision as total harmony between Arabs and Jews, check my bold in the text above to remedy you of such delusions:
“What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish [emphasis original]. A unified Eretz Israeli would be no source of satisfaction for me— if it were Arab.”
It would be interesting to see if anyone[excluding revisionists and ardent Zionists on here] can read the original letter in Hebrew so as to check that the translation in English has been faithful and correct. I will keep an open mind on this.
ETA: The bold text is not cooperating with me today.
Alpinestars said:
franki68 said:
no,of course arabs were displaced,as I mentioned previously some were forced out,some left through fear ,some left because the arab league told them too,and some didnt leave.The use of the word cleansing though is odious,has it been applied to any other displaced population ? And they are not the indigenous people.It is a land that has been conquered many times and had massive immigration into it at many points throughout history .
the palestinians have claimed to be descended from the philistines (I think someone referred to that on this thread earlier) ,but since it was pointed out the philistines were actually greek/cypriot invaders ,the palestinians now try to claim they were descendants of the caanites.
the oNly constant has been a near continual jewish presence for 3000 years.
may I suggest some research on the dna shared between those palestinians who have long ties to israel and the jews ,it suggests that they are descended from jews ,its actually something both sides agree on...keeping quiet.It suits neither side to admit to it,but it is an interesting area of research.
Ok let's not call it ethnic cleansing. Call it what you will. But you accept that some of the population was forced out by terror.the palestinians have claimed to be descended from the philistines (I think someone referred to that on this thread earlier) ,but since it was pointed out the philistines were actually greek/cypriot invaders ,the palestinians now try to claim they were descendants of the caanites.
the oNly constant has been a near continual jewish presence for 3000 years.
may I suggest some research on the dna shared between those palestinians who have long ties to israel and the jews ,it suggests that they are descended from jews ,its actually something both sides agree on...keeping quiet.It suits neither side to admit to it,but it is an interesting area of research.
This begs the question what do pro-Israel revisionists think Zionism is? If they wish to pass Zionism off as an inclusive ideology, then why were the Zionists so adamantly against the refugees right of return? They know as well as Ben-Gurion did and Benny Morris does, that the Jewish State does not want Arabs.
So, why are the ardent pro-Israel camp on here trying to hide what the beloved founding father Ben-Gurion said, wrote and wished? Is it a case of sweeping it under the carpet, exercise some "damage control negationism" in line with the holocaust negationists, because this is what it looks like when you deny the ethnic cleansing that was implemented through the Dalet Plan and lasted six month. At the end of the period more than half of Palestine’s native population, over 750,000 people, had been uprooted, 531 villages had been destroyed, and 11 urban neighbourhoods had been emptied of their inhabitants.
Here's the original David Ben-Gurion letter for those who can read Hebrew:
http://palestine-studies.org/files/hebrelett.pdf
David Ben-Gurion said:
5 October 1937
Dear Amos,
I was not angry at you, but I was very sorry indeed that there was no reply from
you. I cannot accept the excuse that you have no time. I know you have a lot of
work at school, in the field, and at home, and I am happy that you are so
preoccupied with your studies. But it is always possible to find free time if
necessary, not only on Sabbath days but even during weekdays. Your excuse that I
keep moving from one country to another is not convincing. You can write to me
in London. Here they [the Jewish Agency office] always know where I am, and
they are efficient in forwarding my mail. As to the question of my membership in
the executive committee [of the Jewish Agency], I shall explain to you in person if
I meet you in Tel Aviv upon my return. Here what I want to talk about is the
conflict you are experiencing between your reason and your emotions with regard
to the question of the state. Political matters should not be a question of emotions.
The only thing that should be taken into account is what we want and what is best
for us, what will lead to the objective, and which are the policies that will make us
succeed and which will make us fail.
It seems to me that I, too, have "emotions" [quotation marks in original. Hebrew:
regesh]. Without these emotions I would not have been able to endure decades of
our hard work. It definitely does not hurt my feelings [regesh] that a state is
established, even if it is small.
Of course the partition of the country gives me no pleasure. But the country that
they [the Royal (Peel) Commission] are partitioning is not in our actual possession;
it is in the possession of the Arabs and the English. What is in our actual
possession is a small portion, less than what they [the Peel Commission] are
proposing for a Jewish state. If I were an Arab I would have been very indignant.
But in this proposed partition we will get more than what we already have, though
of course much less than we merit and desire. The question is: would we obtain
more without partition? If things were to remain as they are [emphasis in original],
would this satisfy our feelings? [b]What we really want is not that the land remain
whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish
(emphasis original). A unified Eretz Israeli would be no source of satisfaction for
me-- if it were Arab.[/b]
From our standpoint, the status quo is deadly poison. We want to change the status
quo [emphasis original]. But how can this change come about? How can this land
become ours? The decisive question is: Does the establishment of a Jewish state
[in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a
Jewish country?
My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is
now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end
but the beginning.
When we acquire one thousand or 10,000 dunams, we feel elated. It does not hurt
our feelings that by this acquisition we are not in possession of the whole land.
This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but
because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in
the possession of the land as a whole.
[b]The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present
time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.[/b]
We shall admit into the state all the Jews we can. We firmly believe that we can
admit more than two million Jews. We shall build a multi-faceted Jewish
economy-- agricultural, industrial, and maritime. We shall organize an advanced
defense force—a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best
armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling
in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with
our Arab neighbors, or through some other means.
We must always keep in mind the fundamental truths that make our settlement of
this land imperative and possible. They are two or three: it is not the British
3
Mandate nor the Balfour Declaration. These are consequences, not causes. They
are the products of coincidence: contingent, ephemeral, and they will come to an
end. They were not inevitable. They could not have occurred but for the World
War, or rather, they would not have occurred if the war had not ended the way it
did.
But on the other hand there are fundamental [emphasis original] historical truths,
unalterable as long as Zionism is not fully realized. These are:
1) The pressure of the Exile, which continues to push the Jews with propulsive
force towards the country
2) Palestine is grossly under populated. It contains vast colonization potential
which the Arabs neither need nor are qualified (because of their lack of
need) to exploit. There is no Arab immigration problem. There is no Arab
exile. Arabs are not persecuted. They have a homeland, and it is vast.
3) The innovative talents of the Jews (a consequence of point 1 above), their
ability to make the desert bloom, to create industry, to build an economy, to
develop culture, to conquer the sea and space with the help of science and
pioneering endeavor.
These three fundamental truths will be reinforced by the existence of a Jewish state
in a part of the country, just as Zionism will be reinforced by every conquest, large
or small, every school, every factory, every Jewish ship, etc.
Our ability to penetrate the country will increase if we have a state. Our strength
vis-à-vis the Arabs will likewise increase. The possibilities for construction and
multiplication will speedily expand. The greater the Jewish strength in the
country, the more the Arabs will realize that it is neither beneficial nor possible for
them to withstand us. On the contrary, it will be possible for the Arabs to benefit
enormously from the Jews, not only materially but politically as well.
I do not dream of war nor do I like it. But I still believe, more than I did before the
emergence of the possibility of a Jewish state, that once we are numerous and
powerful in the country the Arabs will realize that it is better for them to become
our allies.
4
They will derive benefits from our assistance if they, of their own free will, give us
the opportunity to settle in all parts of the country. The Arabs have many countries
that are under-populated, underdeveloped, and vulnerable, incapable with their
own strength to stand up to their external enemies. Without France, Syria could not
last for one day against an onslaught from Turkey. The same applies to Iraq and to
the new [Palestinian] state [under the Peel plan]. All of these stand in need of the
protection of France or Britain. This need for protection means subjugation and
dependence on the other. But the Jews could be equal allies, real friends, not
occupiers or tyrants over them.
Let us assume that the Negev will not be allotted to the Jewish state. In such event,
the Negev will remain barren because the Arabs have neither the competence nor
the need to develop it or make it prosper. They already have an abundance of
deserts but not of manpower, financial resources, or creative initiative. It is very
probable that they will agree that we undertake the development of the Negev and
make it prosper in return for our financial, military, organizational, and scientific
assistance. It is also possible that they will not agree. People don’t always behave
according to logic, common sense, or their own practical advantage. Just as you
yourself are sometimes split conflicted between your mind and your emotions, it is
possible that the Arabs will follow the dictates of sterile nationalist emotions and
tell us: “We want neither your honey nor your sting. We’d rather that the Negev
remain barren than that Jews should inhabit it.” If this occurs, we will have to talk
to them in a different language—and we will have a different language—but such a
language will not be ours without a state. This is so because we can no longer
tolerate that vast territories capable of absorbing tens of thousands of Jews should
remain vacant, and that Jews cannot return to their homeland because the Arabs
prefer that the place [the Negev] remains neither ours nor theirs. [b]We must expel
Arabs and take their place[/b]. Up to now, all our aspirations have been based on an
assumption – one that has been vindicated throughout our activities in the country
– that there is enough room in the land for the Arabs and ourselves. But if we are
compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or
Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will
enable us to do so.
Clearly in such event we will have to deal not only with the Arabs living in Eretz
Israel, since it is very probable that Arabs from the neighboring countries will
come to their aid. But our power will be greater, not only because we will be better
organized and equipped, but also because behind us stands a force still greater in
quantity and quality. This is the reservoir of the millions in the Diaspora. Our
entire younger generation of Poland, Romania, America, and other countries will
rush to our aid at the outbreak of such a conflict. I pray to God that this does not
happen at all. Nevertheless the Jewish state will not rely only on the Jews living in
it, but on the Jewish people living in every corner of the world: the many millions
who are eager and obliged [emphasis original] to settle in Palestine. There are not
millions of Arabs who are compelled or willing to settle in Palestine. Of course it
is likely that Arab adventurers and gangs will come from Syria or Iraq or other
Arab countries, but these can be no match for the tens and hundreds of thousands
of young Jews to whom Eretz Israel is not merely an emotional issue, but one that
is in equal measure both personal and national.
For this reason I attach enormous importance to the conquest of the sea and the
construction of a Jewish harbor and a Jewish fleet. The sea is the bridge between
the Jews of this country and the Jewish Diaspora – the millions of Jews in different
parts of the world. We must create the conditions that will enable us in times of
necessity to bring into the country in our own ships manned by our own seamen,
tens of thousands of young men. Meanwhile we must prepare these young men
while they are still in the Diaspora for whatever task awaits them here.
I am confident that the establishment of a Jewish state, even if it is only in a part of
the country, will enable us to carry out this task. Once a state is established, we
shall have control over the Eretz Israeli sea. Our activities in the sea will then
include astonishing achievements.
Because of all the above, I feel no conflict between my mind and emotions. Both
declare to me: A Jewish state must be established immediately, even if it is only in
part of the country. The rest will follow in the course of time. A Jewish state will
come.
My warm greetings [Hebrew: Shalom Rav].
When do you return to Kadoorie [agricultural school]? Write to me. Show this
letter to your mother and sisters.
Dear Amos,
I was not angry at you, but I was very sorry indeed that there was no reply from
you. I cannot accept the excuse that you have no time. I know you have a lot of
work at school, in the field, and at home, and I am happy that you are so
preoccupied with your studies. But it is always possible to find free time if
necessary, not only on Sabbath days but even during weekdays. Your excuse that I
keep moving from one country to another is not convincing. You can write to me
in London. Here they [the Jewish Agency office] always know where I am, and
they are efficient in forwarding my mail. As to the question of my membership in
the executive committee [of the Jewish Agency], I shall explain to you in person if
I meet you in Tel Aviv upon my return. Here what I want to talk about is the
conflict you are experiencing between your reason and your emotions with regard
to the question of the state. Political matters should not be a question of emotions.
The only thing that should be taken into account is what we want and what is best
for us, what will lead to the objective, and which are the policies that will make us
succeed and which will make us fail.
It seems to me that I, too, have "emotions" [quotation marks in original. Hebrew:
regesh]. Without these emotions I would not have been able to endure decades of
our hard work. It definitely does not hurt my feelings [regesh] that a state is
established, even if it is small.
Of course the partition of the country gives me no pleasure. But the country that
they [the Royal (Peel) Commission] are partitioning is not in our actual possession;
it is in the possession of the Arabs and the English. What is in our actual
possession is a small portion, less than what they [the Peel Commission] are
proposing for a Jewish state. If I were an Arab I would have been very indignant.
But in this proposed partition we will get more than what we already have, though
of course much less than we merit and desire. The question is: would we obtain
more without partition? If things were to remain as they are [emphasis in original],
would this satisfy our feelings? [b]What we really want is not that the land remain
whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish
(emphasis original). A unified Eretz Israeli would be no source of satisfaction for
me-- if it were Arab.[/b]
From our standpoint, the status quo is deadly poison. We want to change the status
quo [emphasis original]. But how can this change come about? How can this land
become ours? The decisive question is: Does the establishment of a Jewish state
[in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a
Jewish country?
My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is
now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end
but the beginning.
When we acquire one thousand or 10,000 dunams, we feel elated. It does not hurt
our feelings that by this acquisition we are not in possession of the whole land.
This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but
because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in
the possession of the land as a whole.
[b]The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present
time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.[/b]
We shall admit into the state all the Jews we can. We firmly believe that we can
admit more than two million Jews. We shall build a multi-faceted Jewish
economy-- agricultural, industrial, and maritime. We shall organize an advanced
defense force—a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best
armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling
in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with
our Arab neighbors, or through some other means.
We must always keep in mind the fundamental truths that make our settlement of
this land imperative and possible. They are two or three: it is not the British
3
Mandate nor the Balfour Declaration. These are consequences, not causes. They
are the products of coincidence: contingent, ephemeral, and they will come to an
end. They were not inevitable. They could not have occurred but for the World
War, or rather, they would not have occurred if the war had not ended the way it
did.
But on the other hand there are fundamental [emphasis original] historical truths,
unalterable as long as Zionism is not fully realized. These are:
1) The pressure of the Exile, which continues to push the Jews with propulsive
force towards the country
2) Palestine is grossly under populated. It contains vast colonization potential
which the Arabs neither need nor are qualified (because of their lack of
need) to exploit. There is no Arab immigration problem. There is no Arab
exile. Arabs are not persecuted. They have a homeland, and it is vast.
3) The innovative talents of the Jews (a consequence of point 1 above), their
ability to make the desert bloom, to create industry, to build an economy, to
develop culture, to conquer the sea and space with the help of science and
pioneering endeavor.
These three fundamental truths will be reinforced by the existence of a Jewish state
in a part of the country, just as Zionism will be reinforced by every conquest, large
or small, every school, every factory, every Jewish ship, etc.
Our ability to penetrate the country will increase if we have a state. Our strength
vis-à-vis the Arabs will likewise increase. The possibilities for construction and
multiplication will speedily expand. The greater the Jewish strength in the
country, the more the Arabs will realize that it is neither beneficial nor possible for
them to withstand us. On the contrary, it will be possible for the Arabs to benefit
enormously from the Jews, not only materially but politically as well.
I do not dream of war nor do I like it. But I still believe, more than I did before the
emergence of the possibility of a Jewish state, that once we are numerous and
powerful in the country the Arabs will realize that it is better for them to become
our allies.
4
They will derive benefits from our assistance if they, of their own free will, give us
the opportunity to settle in all parts of the country. The Arabs have many countries
that are under-populated, underdeveloped, and vulnerable, incapable with their
own strength to stand up to their external enemies. Without France, Syria could not
last for one day against an onslaught from Turkey. The same applies to Iraq and to
the new [Palestinian] state [under the Peel plan]. All of these stand in need of the
protection of France or Britain. This need for protection means subjugation and
dependence on the other. But the Jews could be equal allies, real friends, not
occupiers or tyrants over them.
Let us assume that the Negev will not be allotted to the Jewish state. In such event,
the Negev will remain barren because the Arabs have neither the competence nor
the need to develop it or make it prosper. They already have an abundance of
deserts but not of manpower, financial resources, or creative initiative. It is very
probable that they will agree that we undertake the development of the Negev and
make it prosper in return for our financial, military, organizational, and scientific
assistance. It is also possible that they will not agree. People don’t always behave
according to logic, common sense, or their own practical advantage. Just as you
yourself are sometimes split conflicted between your mind and your emotions, it is
possible that the Arabs will follow the dictates of sterile nationalist emotions and
tell us: “We want neither your honey nor your sting. We’d rather that the Negev
remain barren than that Jews should inhabit it.” If this occurs, we will have to talk
to them in a different language—and we will have a different language—but such a
language will not be ours without a state. This is so because we can no longer
tolerate that vast territories capable of absorbing tens of thousands of Jews should
remain vacant, and that Jews cannot return to their homeland because the Arabs
prefer that the place [the Negev] remains neither ours nor theirs. [b]We must expel
Arabs and take their place[/b]. Up to now, all our aspirations have been based on an
assumption – one that has been vindicated throughout our activities in the country
– that there is enough room in the land for the Arabs and ourselves. But if we are
compelled to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev or
Transjordan, but in order to guarantee our right to settle there – our force will
enable us to do so.
Clearly in such event we will have to deal not only with the Arabs living in Eretz
Israel, since it is very probable that Arabs from the neighboring countries will
come to their aid. But our power will be greater, not only because we will be better
organized and equipped, but also because behind us stands a force still greater in
quantity and quality. This is the reservoir of the millions in the Diaspora. Our
entire younger generation of Poland, Romania, America, and other countries will
rush to our aid at the outbreak of such a conflict. I pray to God that this does not
happen at all. Nevertheless the Jewish state will not rely only on the Jews living in
it, but on the Jewish people living in every corner of the world: the many millions
who are eager and obliged [emphasis original] to settle in Palestine. There are not
millions of Arabs who are compelled or willing to settle in Palestine. Of course it
is likely that Arab adventurers and gangs will come from Syria or Iraq or other
Arab countries, but these can be no match for the tens and hundreds of thousands
of young Jews to whom Eretz Israel is not merely an emotional issue, but one that
is in equal measure both personal and national.
For this reason I attach enormous importance to the conquest of the sea and the
construction of a Jewish harbor and a Jewish fleet. The sea is the bridge between
the Jews of this country and the Jewish Diaspora – the millions of Jews in different
parts of the world. We must create the conditions that will enable us in times of
necessity to bring into the country in our own ships manned by our own seamen,
tens of thousands of young men. Meanwhile we must prepare these young men
while they are still in the Diaspora for whatever task awaits them here.
I am confident that the establishment of a Jewish state, even if it is only in a part of
the country, will enable us to carry out this task. Once a state is established, we
shall have control over the Eretz Israeli sea. Our activities in the sea will then
include astonishing achievements.
Because of all the above, I feel no conflict between my mind and emotions. Both
declare to me: A Jewish state must be established immediately, even if it is only in
part of the country. The rest will follow in the course of time. A Jewish state will
come.
My warm greetings [Hebrew: Shalom Rav].
When do you return to Kadoorie [agricultural school]? Write to me. Show this
letter to your mother and sisters.
The letter is like a rallying cry revealing that he won't be satisfied with anything less than the whole of Israel being Jewish.(My bold)
“The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country.”
And in case you are reading something else in Ben-Gurion's vision as total harmony between Arabs and Jews, check my bold in the text above to remedy you of such delusions:
“What we really want is not that the land remain whole and unified. What we want is that the whole and unified land be Jewish [emphasis original]. A unified Eretz Israeli would be no source of satisfaction for me— if it were Arab.”
It would be interesting to see if anyone[excluding revisionists and ardent Zionists on here] can read the original letter in Hebrew so as to check that the translation in English has been faithful and correct. I will keep an open mind on this.
ETA: The bold text is not cooperating with me today.
Edited by allnighter on Saturday 2nd August 12:56
NoNeed said:
So what facts did he say that are wrong? You use the word biased and generalisation yet I suspect you have not watched the video.
But like I ask if you have previously seen it, just point out where it is wrong.
It will need statesmen on both sides to make sacrifices if peace is to be achieved .But like I ask if you have previously seen it, just point out where it is wrong.
Listening to speeches,by politicians or spokesmen,of either side,that have intransigent views on this complex subject will not take us forward.
It will simply fuel the fire of hatred,a fire that by your own one sided viewpoint you also fuel.
You take two weeks,out of a 67 year old problem,and extrapolate that small window into a thesis.
It gets us nowhere.
avinalarf said:
George Galloway is an odious man,with a biased political agenda,and the personal morals of a tomcat.
The fact that you admire him and use lazy generalisations is just the type of person to whom he has appeal.
How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously ,you debase the tragedy of the Palestinians and Israelis.
Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King are icons ,Galloway is not fit to lick their shoes.
Absolutely spot on.The fact that you admire him and use lazy generalisations is just the type of person to whom he has appeal.
How can you possibly expect to be taken seriously ,you debase the tragedy of the Palestinians and Israelis.
Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King are icons ,Galloway is not fit to lick their shoes.
If George Galloway said "good morning" I'd assume it had gone noon.
He is so pro muslim, he is currently on his 4th wife.
avinalarf said:
NoNeed said:
So what facts did he say that are wrong? You use the word biased and generalisation yet I suspect you have not watched the video.
But like I ask if you have previously seen it, just point out where it is wrong.
It will need statesmen on both sides to make sacrifices if peace is to be achieved .But like I ask if you have previously seen it, just point out where it is wrong.
Listening to speeches,by politicians or spokesmen,of either side,that have intransigent views on this complex subject will not take us forward.
It will simply fuel the fire of hatred,a fire that by your own one sided viewpoint you also fuel.
You take two weeks,out of a 67 year old problem,and extrapolate that small window into a thesis.
It gets us nowhere.
I would still like to know where he is wrong, what facts as he stated that are not correct?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Absolutely spot on.
If George Galloway said "good morning" I'd assume it had gone noon.
He is so pro muslim, he is currently on his 4th wife.
Listen to you! I thought you reached a new low when you spoke about kids experiencing a quick death from Israeli missiles as being 'better' than seeing them suffer like unfortunate kids suffer in other parts of the world, now you are shifting your attention to mocking Muslims, who's next I wonder?If George Galloway said "good morning" I'd assume it had gone noon.
He is so pro muslim, he is currently on his 4th wife.
You are a vile man!
Edited by allnighter on Saturday 2nd August 13:33
NoNeed said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Absolutely spot on.
If George Galloway said "good morning" I'd assume it had gone noon.
He is so pro muslim, he is currently on his 4th wife.
So what has he said that is wrong? Is being Muslim wrong? If George Galloway said "good morning" I'd assume it had gone noon.
He is so pro muslim, he is currently on his 4th wife.
But is he not an MP for Bradford West, and hence does not his future in parliament depend on him winning those votes? Which hardly makes him neutral, given that I think he's a self serving scumbag anyway.
Plus, one of his increasingly long list of ever younger wives was Palestinian I think, which again calls into question his objectivity.
I think the current (as of this morning) Mrs Galloway is 32 year his junior.
Anyone, enough of him, I'm off to check the updates on the alleged Westminster paedo ring.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
RedTrident said:
supersingle said:
That's what comes from having a population of educated, resourceful and productive citizens. A far cry from the rest of the middle east.
Did they not kill their leader because he was going to negotiate a peace? Have you ever met one of these settlers?As far as the Oslo agreement is concerned, Israel was unwilling to make any concessions to the Palestinians, and then ended the talks when Arafat was unwilling to accept Israeli annexation of major swaths of the West Bank, Israeli control of Palestine's borders, its airspace, Israeli military outposts within Palestine, Jewish-only highways dividing the West Bank into cantons, Israeli control of the aquifer, etc. Would any self respecting leader or head of state accept those terms?
supersingle said:
Galloway is on record saying he doesn't debate with Israelis and he doesn't recognise Israel.
I am no fan of him, but perhaps he will reconsider, once Israel has 'cleanesed' itself of state sponsored terrorism and the death and destruction it inflicts on unarmed civilians including babies, toddlers, women and the eldery in Gaza.The truce Egypt recently brokered had wall to wall support from all of the nations of the Arab league as well as the PA. All the US had to do was stand behind it. Instead, our SOS John Kerry went to Qatar and engaged the Hamas lawyers. He then walks into the process, like a bull in a china shop, with a proposal that basically gave in to all of Hamas' demands. Not only did this add legitimacy to Hamas, but it upended the process. Even the more moderate wing of the PA publically scorned him for doing so. The violation of the latest ceasefire by Hamas (yes they did), allowed him to walk back some of the damage he did by condemning them for doing so. For that I commend him and his boss Obama. I hope in the future, he gets a clue and treads a little more gracefully.
allnighter said:
ho cares about Vanessa Redgrave? The Palestinians can only rely upon themselves and that's what they learn each day that goes by.The neighbouring Arabs don't give a toss, so they have to fight for themselves.
As far as the Oslo agreement is concerned, Israel was unwilling to make any concessions to the Palestinians, and then ended the talks when Arafat was unwilling to accept Israeli annexation of major swaths of the West Bank, Israeli control of Palestine's borders, its airspace, Israeli military outposts within Palestine, Jewish-only highways dividing the West Bank into cantons, Israeli control of the aquifer, etc. Would any self respecting leader or head of state accept those terms?
92% of the west bank was offered (91% of original west bank plus 1% land swap) plus all of the Gaza strip.As far as the Oslo agreement is concerned, Israel was unwilling to make any concessions to the Palestinians, and then ended the talks when Arafat was unwilling to accept Israeli annexation of major swaths of the West Bank, Israeli control of Palestine's borders, its airspace, Israeli military outposts within Palestine, Jewish-only highways dividing the West Bank into cantons, Israeli control of the aquifer, etc. Would any self respecting leader or head of state accept those terms?
The West bank would have been divided by a Jewish only highway, but a similar highway would have linked the West Bank and Gaza.
It is almost certainly the case that a final settlement should have full restitution for any west bank land remaining under Israeli control, but what was offered at Camp David was not far short of any realistic final settlement.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
NoNeed said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Absolutely spot on.
If George Galloway said "good morning" I'd assume it had gone noon.
He is so pro muslim, he is currently on his 4th wife.
So what has he said that is wrong? Is being Muslim wrong? If George Galloway said "good morning" I'd assume it had gone noon.
He is so pro muslim, he is currently on his 4th wife.
But is he not an MP for Bradford West, and hence does not his future in parliament depend on him winning those votes? Which hardly makes him neutral, given that I think he's a self serving scumbag anyway.
Plus, one of his increasingly long list of ever younger wives was Palestinian I think, which again calls into question his objectivity.
I think the current (as of this morning) Mrs Galloway is 32 year his junior.
Anyone, enough of him, I'm off to check the updates on the alleged Westminster paedo ring.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff