So Bibi Wants To Begin The "Final Solution."

[ruby sparks]

If Haaretz said it it's likely false.

It isn't. He said it.

I asked you not to bother replying if you were just going to do pro-Israeli apologetics, but I guess it was your free choice.

It is beyond any reasonable doubt, given all the information, evidence and facts that are out there, that what I described in my post actually really happened. It was in some cases openly admitted. Benny Morris (the Jewish historian whose words I quoted) is one such example, and he is not a critic of Israel, far from it, he basically justifies what happened. He is just admitting it did. He has even critisized Ben Gurion for not doing enough ethnic cleansing (which he argues was justified, literally using the term 'ethnic cleansing').

The original actions of Jews migrating into and settling in the lands now called Israel is one large factor that adversely affected subsequent geopolitical and social issues in the region. De facto, no question.

The problem with your position is not that you don't have a point about what you see as 'the other side', it's that you are just as biased in the opposite direction. To me that profoundly devalues your contribution to the discussion. You are effectively practicing the lie of deliberate omission of one side of the story. Either that or you are seriously misinformed.

I will agree with any person who says that some on the 'other side' have a skewed position in favour of, say, the Palestinians (and do not give Israel enough credit and support) but if that person is basically being a dishonest (or alternatively badly misinformed) hypocrite, as you are, then we can't have much of a productive conversation. Because there are two sides, and labelling one as 'goodies' and the other as 'baddies' is stupid.

I have a lot of sympathy for the predicament of Israeli jews today (and the Palestinians for that matter) but it is going too far to deny that the original actions of Jewish immigrants caused a lot of the subsequent problems.

 

[Arctish]

Why are you finding it so hard to address the point of my posts, and so tempting to quibble over minutiae that doesn't matter?

Israel recognized the PLO as the authority representing the Palestinian people as part of the process laid out in the Oslo Accords. The PLO then ceded its claim to the area inside Israel's 1967 borders to Israel with the expectation that the area outside them would become the Palestinian State.

The Palestinian Authority formed after that happened. The PLO's top diplomat, Abbas, the guy who actually led the negotiating team in Oslo and who signed the Accords on behalf of the Palestinian people, is currently its President.

The PLO explicitly stated it's support for a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders when the Oslo Accords were in effect, and the PA under Abbas has not changed that position. Hamas is very pointedly hinting at accepting the 1967 borders in their recent proposals. The international community also recognizes the 1967 Green Line as Israel's borders. The only ones who don't are the Israelis. So if you're going to whinge about people not accepting the 1967 borders, you can aim your barbs at the Israelis, especially Netanyahui and his faction.

And when Israel suddenly has millions upon millions of Palestinian Muslims living inside its newly and illegally expanded borders, don't blame the Palestinians. They wanted to remain separate but Bibi wouldn't let them.

Your dodging the statement that Abbas was elected for a 4 year term 14 years ago and there hasn't been an election there since then is noted.

I'm not dodging it. I'm saying it's an irrelevant non sequitur.

Perhaps you see a direct link between the number of years since Abbas' election and this:

Withdraw to the 1948 borders perhaps? Arab armies attacked those too, remember?

Israel successfully defended them on multiple occasions, remember?

There's no such thing as a country so large it won't be attacked so if that's where you're going with this, don't bother. Adding what remains of Palestinian land to Israel won't make a difference wrt outside threats.

As for Israel occupying areas of the West Bank. These areas would remain israeli in any settlement with Hamas or PA in a swap of land for peace. But only an Arab apologist doesn't or won't understand that is the last thing Arab Palestinians want.

The area outside Israel's 1967 borders is not part of Israel, need not be part of Israel, and would not be part of Israel in a Two State solution.

The PLO explicitly stated it's support for a Two State solution based on the 1967 borders and Hamas is very pointedly hinting at it with their recent proposals. But IMO that ship sailed when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a Zionist from the faction that wants it all, and that faction gained control of the country.

If you're saying the only likely solution at this point is the One State solution, I agree with you.

Unfortunately, I'm not a mind reader. I don't see how your comment is relevant. You'll have to explain it to me.

 

[angelo]

Many links are provided in this article...........................................................

Why were the Palestinians who fled the fighting during the 1948 war not allowed to return to their homes afterwards? Would doing so have prevented the Palestinian refugee issue we see today?
Elke Weiss
Elke Weiss, Israeli-American
Answered May 11, 2018
TDLR: Because it was a war, and Israelis are not saints, but human beings. They knew it was killed or be killed, and were not magnanimous in victory. And no, the refugee issue is artificially maintained.

The Palestinians who fled were viewed as the enemy, and there was little compassion for them.

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League. May 15, 1947 BBC broadcast. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Mitchell G. Bard: 9780971294516: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more: Books

I mean, when one side promises a war of extermination and a momentous massacre if they win, do they really expect to be welcomed back if they lost?

Think this is just “Hasbara”? This ethnic cleansing was confirmed by a Palestinian source. Look what happened to Jews during the same war.

Just weeks after his burial, the Jordanian army invaded the neighborhood. They were convinced that its inhabitants were Jews and not Arabs; hence, the commander ordered the killing of everyone. The Story of a Woman and a Nation - Bethlehem Bible College

Why would anyone think Israelis would win a war intending their genocide and then say “Oh, by the way, losing side? Come back, let’s forget it happened.”

Yes, many were chased out, because it was a war. Kill or be killed. There was no third option.

"The Arabs have taken into their own hands the final solution of the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will soon be driven out." Arab Higher Committee circular. 1947 Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Mitchell G. Bard: 9780971294516: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more: Books

So, basically, here’s the situation. Israelis are told they will be given “the final solution” and will be “driven out.” Jews who fall under Jordanian hands are ordered murdered.

And by the way? The war of extermination would have been extended to Mizrahi Jews.

"The surviving Jews would be helped to return to their native countries, but my estimation is that none will survive" Ahmed Shuqeiri (later PLO chief) quoted in Churchill and Churchill, p. 52 Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Mitchell G. Bard: 9780971294516: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more: Books

And while they weren’t killed, the Mizrahi Jews were ethnically cleansed. Let’s examine the numbers of Jews in the Middle East. Notice a trend? Anyone asking for their rights?


(Source)

No, because they don’t live in eyesores. Israel didn’t stick them into refugee camps, hang keys around their neck and tell them to rot in citizenless limbo until they returned home, so we don’t hear about them.

They are equal citizens and are part of our country.

Sadly, the same wasn’t true for Palestinians.

"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live." PA Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, (Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority in 2003), 1976. In Falastin a-Thaura, March 1976 Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Mitchell G. Bard: 9780971294516: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more: Books

This is confirmed in other sources.

"Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return." Syrian Prime Minister Haled al Azm, 1948-49 Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Mitchell G. Bard: 9780971294516: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more: Books

So no, Israelis weren’t going to allow the enemy side of an almost civil war to return. Not sure any country would, after being threatened with genocide.

The fact that there are those refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing [the UN plan for] partition and the [creation of a] Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously…." Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee during the 1948 War. Beirut Daily Telegraph, September 6, 1948. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Mitchell G. Bard: 9780971294516: Amazon.com: Books

And let’s remember, there’s actually no right of return.

Article 11 of the resolution reads:

(The General Assembly) Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible. Palestinian right of return - Wikipedia

Jewish refugees are entitled to the same rights. So perhaps we should mutually negotiate?
We have no evidence that the refugees want to live in peace with us. How exactly should that be determined?
But, all hope wasn’t lost.

In fact, a two state solution could have been created ten years later.

"Between 1953 and 1956, at the request of President Eisenhower, I undertook to negotiate with these States (Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria) a comprehensive Jordan Valley development plan that would have provided for the irrigation of some 2225,000 acres…But in October 1956 it was rejected for political reasons at a meeting of the Arab League…." US Ambassador Eric Johnston 1957 Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Mitchell G. Bard: 9780971294516: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more: Books

So why wasn’t it implemented?

"Any discussion aimed at a solution of the Palestine problem which will not be based on ensuring the refugees' right to annihilate Israel will be regarded as a desecration of the Arab people and an act of treason." Refugee Conference at Homs, Syria, 1957. Arab states resolution Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Mitchell G. Bard: 9780971294516: Amazon.com: Books

Because Israel is kinda not interested in a solution that involves our annihilation. Been there, done that, didn’t like being mass murdered for two millennia.

And hey, blaming the Jews is good scapegoating and allows the dictators to keep people miserable and blame others.

"Since 1948 Arab leaders…have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is…criminal." King Hussein of Jordan, 1960 Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Mitchell G. Bard: 9780971294516: Amazon.com: Books

There is no other refugee population kept in these conditions.

"The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it an open sore, as an affront to the UN and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die." Ralph Galloway, former Director of UNRWA, August 1958 Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict: Mitchell G. Bard: 9780971294516: Amazon.com: Books

Seriously, everyone’s all pro-Palestinian…on someone else’s dime.

Mazen Abdallah

Man the Lebanese security forces are such amateurs. Breaking up a pro-Palestine protest with tear gas? Seriously? All you have to do to break up a pro-Palestine protest is to start a chant in favor of Palestinian citizenship and equal rights. Place'll clear out in seconds

Let’s be honest, had they been intergrated the way Mizrahi Jews were, we wouldn’t have a problem.

But…that didn’t happen.

LEBANON: Palestinian Refugees Face Systematic Discrimination

Kuwait Expelled Thousands of Palestinians

Jordan kills 25,000 Palestinians.

Why?

"Hisham Yousseff, spokesman for the 22-nation Arab League, acknowledged that Palestinians live 'in very bad conditions,' but said the policy is meant 'to preserve the Palestinian identity. If every Palestinian who sought refuge in a certain country was integrated and accommodated into that country, there won't be any reason for them to return to Palestine,' he said." AP story December 30, 2003 championed by Arab world yet treated like outcasts

Yeah. The refugee crisis is maintained today by people who claim to be Pro-Palestinian, but don’t want to give people living for 7 decades in their countries equal rights.

 

[ruby sparks]

Because it was a war, and Israelis are not saints, but human beings. They knew it was killed or be killed......

Sure. But go back one step at least. From the point of view of the affected Palestinians, what business were all those Jews suddenly doing there in the first place? And 'suddenly and in large numbers' is a key part of it. Prior to 1948 it seems jewish immigrants, though fairly substantial in numbers over time, did not displace or dispossess Palestinians.

The outbreak of war was effectively a response to an attempted jewish conquest, or at the very least a rapid plantation, which is a conquest-by-numbers.

As regards what happened next and the formation of the modern State of Israel specifically, it is hard not to see the jews as instigators, albeit sanctioned and encouraged by foreign, western powers initially, and indeed for not wholly 'bad' reasons (given the recent jewish holocaust). Even as a well-intended and in some ways deserving solution to a genuine and serious problem, it turned out to be a bit of a disaster, arguably one of the greatest mistakes in modern history, as regards its impact on subsequent international, global relations.

I agree that since then, one side has been more or less as intransigent as the other, or at least there have been influential people on both sides (and outside, such as in neighbouring arab countries) who have been as intransigent. The jews, having arrived, faced (and face) or at least justifiably fear, annihilation. I reckon that at least the zionists among them after WW2 would have worked that out before coming. They would have known that both the dramatically-increased numbers and the claims to the land would be an instigation and would involve displacement/uprooting of non-jews. Ditto for the current expansionists who continue to settle further areas such as the West Bank, who are also instigators.

Also, I think it's fine to cite mistreatment of Jews in arab territories prior to the creation of Israel, or, at a pinch going way back into ancient history to a time when Israel was an ancient jewish nation (albeit going even further back, they won it from others). But in the spirit of owning up to one's own actions, it wouldn't imo excuse or justify what happened during the creation of modern Israel, especially as that was such a large and rapid series of events which can be analysed slightly separately in many ways.

 

[ruby sparks]

Is this an interesting hypothetical.....

African Americans, in large numbers (though not by any means all of them) migrate to the states of South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia in order to plant them and create a unified, majority-black state. They mostly displace and dispossess any whites living there, often forcibly. In the hypothetical, they have the muscle and financial and military clout to try this, partly because they are funded and encouraged by very wealthy benefactors, including from other countries, which may include majority white countries who feel that African Americans 'deserve' it.

After setting up the state, they go on to implement admirably democratic, tolerant and liberal policies, that are arguably even better, fairer and more progressive than in the existing states of the USA around them (they become, in many ways a 'model state') with the exception that although they would ideally want to treat the remaining whites equally, they also feel compelled to treat them with some suspicion, because they fear the 'enemy within' and because all around them are other, majority-white states which would like their new black state to be eradicated. And they must be very aggressive in defending their state against outsiders for that reason also. The original backers and benefactors continue to support the new black state in a variety of ways, politically and financially, to ensure or at least strongly support its survival. Because simultaneously, wealthy or influential foreign states are similarly backing the hostile neighbours and the white ex-residents.

I would have used Native North Americans for the hypothetical, but there aren't enough of them left, I don't think, so more imagination would have been required. But it would have been a better hypothetical otherwise, since they could have had the equivalent of zionist claims to be the original occupants.

Or, and perhaps this hypothetical is best and most topical of all, how about Mexicans similarly 'planting' Texas (which was once part of their empire) under similar hypothetical conditions, including the foreign backing? Suck that one up, White Texans.

Look, I know that the analogy won't stand up to scrutiny. It's only meant to try to illustrate certain things, by using a different perspective. Nor is it fully thought-through either. But, in general terms, once you put yourself in someone else's position, it's often easier to at least appreciate their reasons for behaving in a certain way. In other words, whether your pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, put yourself in the position of the other once in a while.

 

[repoman]

Well Israel has some very strict intermarriage laws.

 

[ruby sparks]

Well Israel has some very strict intermarriage laws.

Hm. Interesting. I didn't know that. I'm assuming even our resident pro-Israelis wouldn't be in favour.

On the other side of the coin, I hear they are very progressive regarding the rights and freedom of homosexuals, and on women's issues, including abortion. And atheism/irreligiosity is well-accepted, I believe.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A token number of refugees wouldn't be a big problem--but it's only in leftist fantasy that that would be acceptable.

You may be right. Abbas and the PA have indicated they would accept it but Netanyahu and Likud have indicated they won't. That doesn't mean it isn't a viable plan that would solve a huge problem for Israel. It just means racism and religious bigotry are driving decisions in the Knesset.

Where is this indication that the PA would accept a token number of refugees? Doing so would be a capital crime by their law.

There aren't enough of those other groups. The Islamists would carry the ballot box and start another Holocaust.

All the more reason for Israel to be pro-active and resettle the refugees into the West Bank, and then stop annexing the West Bank.

Which would do nothing to stop the violence.

If you want Israel to agree to something you need to have a proposal that has some benefit for them. Everything you ask for is give, give, give and get nothing in return. They have shown they will give back land for peace, but this is a request to give land for nothing.

The issue isn't going to go away on its own. But since the One State solution is the only one likely at this point, there isn't going to be an easy way out going forward. Israel is going to have to deal with millions upon millions of non-Jews within its borders and in nearby refugee camps building support for their return.

Suicide isn't a good option.

"I will not uproot a single settlement, and I will ensure that we’ll control all the area West of the Jordan river. Will we move to the next stage? The answer is yes, we will move to the next stage—to the gradual extension of Israeli sovereignty in the areas of Judea and Samaria. I also do not distinguish between the settlement blocs and the lone settlements, every settlement like that is for me Israeli." --- Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking in April of this year, linked here

Which doesn't say he will annex all that area.

Either you're bullshitting again, or you're ignoring all of the information that has been posted here over the years that clearly show Palestinians being displaced and their land being seized, even information you posted about an attempt to force 'Arab' Israelis out of Israel.

Personally, I think you're doing both.

The problem with your logic is that very little of what you claim they are doing actually happens--how can they be so inept at evil and yet so competent in war?

And you utterly ignored the cleansing of East Jerusalem. (Note that many of the Arab "expulsions" you are talking about are Jews reclaiming property they were driven out of in 48. You don't like the Palestinian ethnic cleansing to stand.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because it was a war, and Israelis are not saints, but human beings. They knew it was killed or be killed......

Sure. But go back one step at least. From the point of view of the affected Palestinians, what business were all those Jews suddenly doing there in the first place? And 'suddenly and in large numbers' is a key part of it. Prior to 1948 it seems jewish immigrants, though fairly substantial in numbers over time, did not displace or dispossess Palestinians.

Because there wasn't a war. The displacements happened when the Palestinians (as part of the Arabs) opted for the path of genocide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The outbreak of war was effectively a response to an attempted jewish conquest, or at the very least a rapid plantation, which is a conquest-by-numbers.

Note that your argument applies equally to the US, where the white nationalists are the Palestinians.

Thus I take it you support the KKK? Or are you a hypocrite?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well Israel has some very strict intermarriage laws.

Actually, no. The problem is that Israel doesn't have marriage laws. They leave marriage up to the various religions and thus if your church won't do an interfaith marriage you're not able to marry. There's a fairly easy work-around, though--fly somewhere, get married, come back and register your marriage.

 

[ruby sparks]

The outbreak of war was effectively a response to an attempted jewish conquest, or at the very least a rapid plantation, which is a conquest-by-numbers.

Note that your argument applies equally to the US, where the white nationalists are the Palestinians.

In some bizarre parallel universe perhaps. Where your brain lives.

Never mind.

 

[ruby sparks]

Because it was a war, and Israelis are not saints, but human beings. They knew it was killed or be killed......

Sure. But go back one step at least. From the point of view of the affected Palestinians, what business were all those Jews suddenly doing there in the first place? And 'suddenly and in large numbers' is a key part of it. Prior to 1948 it seems jewish immigrants, though fairly substantial in numbers over time, did not displace or dispossess Palestinians.

Because there wasn't a war. The displacements happened when the Palestinians (as part of the Arabs) opted for the path of genocide.

That's funny. Honest zionists at the time (and after) and honest pro-Israeli historians, openly admit what happened, and yet you deny it. That is actually hilarious. If you even had half an ounce of sense, instead of denying it (because it clearly and obviously did happen, deliberately) you'd say yes it happened but, like them you'd try to justify it. Lol. But that you deny it is black Orwellian humour, where the facts of history are rewritten. Wherever you get your version of what happened from, the writers of it are using you as a stooge. You're a stooge, and you don't even know it. You need to go read some reliable sources. The Jews enacted a policy of ethnic cleansing, during the war (yes, there was a war; the arabs resisted the imposition of the proposed state of Israel by the UN). There is no doubt. They did so because they knew it would be necessary in order to establish a new Jewish state. The only relevant question is whether they were justified or not. They felt they were. You deny it even happened the way it did. What do you even mean, there wasn't a war? Of course there was a war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947–1949_Palestine_war

 

[angelo]

The Hamas-Iran Plan to Eliminate Israel
by Bassam Tawil
July 22, 2019 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14575/hamas-iran-eliminate-israel

Send
Print

Share
"There are Jews everywhere. We must attack every Jew on planet Earth! We must slaughter and kill them, with Allah's help. We will lacerate and tear them to pieces." — Fathi Hammad, Hamas senior leader, at a rally near the Gaza-Israel border, July 14, 2019.

Haniyeh's statements coincided with a visit to Iran by a senior Hamas delegation. Headed by the Palestinian arch-terrorist Saleh Arouri, the delegation will spend a few days in Tehran for talks with Iranian leaders on ways of strengthening relations between the two sides.

...

 

[ruby sparks]

Hamas, who control the Gaza strip, want to throw the Jews out of Israel and don't mind annihilating them to achieve that. Beyond that, they would be in favour of wiping all jews off the face of the earth, because they are virulently anti-semitic. This is no big secret.

 

[ruby sparks]

Here's the deal, as I understand it. For quite a long time, but especially from about 1890 until 1948, Zionist jews wanted and attempted to re-create the state of ancient, jewish Israel, even though the lands in question and the whole region around them were majority or predominantly muslim and had been for well over a thousand years.

Foreign, western colonial powers, who in those days thought that divvying up large parts of the non-western world (mostly and previously between themselves) was both their prerogative and a fun hobby, eventually facilitated it.

The rest is somewhat inevitable (modern) history.

 

[ruby sparks]

Now, imo, and notwithstanding the above, the arabs, who in the years leading up to 1948, were promised and were going to be given, their own arab national state (or states, if they could agree them between themselves, which wasn't entirely likely since there were so many factions) could, in return, have accepted the jews getting some of Palestine specifically, especially as by then, there were a lot of jews living there, albeit still a minority (something like 40% by 1948 I believe, but 30% even by 1919). As such, something less than about half of Palestine might have been not unreasonable. After all, the arabs were going to get for themselves more than 75% in total (I think) of what was defined as Transjordan ('British Transjordan') at the same time. So maybe they were very greedy (there's a decent case for saying it). But, as per above, all the lands, Palestine & beyond, had been muslim (though ruled from abroad by Turkish muslims for quite a spell) for about 1300 years at that stage (which is a very long time, approximately three times longer than white people had been in North America for example) and because of that they regarded them as 'theirs'.

Added to which, they would have been right to think that for the Zionists, the 1948 partition would only have been a toehold, a stepping stone towards a much larger jewish state, one which would ideally go almost to Damascus and Amman in the east and Sidon (now in Lebanon) to the north, if they could achieve it, i.e. the territory claimed by the World Zionist Organization in 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference. Partly as a result, the arabs tried, unsuccessfully, to snuff it out before it hardly even got going.

In some ways, it depends who you blame more, the Zionists for trying to create a jewish country in (admittedly not densely populated) longstanding muslim territory, or the (arab) muslims, for not wanting to let them.

Nearly everyone agreed in principle that the jews 'deserved' a homeland (although in saying that, it wasn't actually a necessary or even practical thing, but it was the aspiration of some jews, for understandable reasons, but even today more than half of the world's jews live outside Israel) and at one time they considered a region in Argentina, and one in temperate, upland Uganda. But in the end they opted for muslim Palestine, and the smart ones among them must surely have known it was going to result in serious conflict.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The outbreak of war was effectively a response to an attempted jewish conquest, or at the very least a rapid plantation, which is a conquest-by-numbers.

Note that your argument applies equally to the US, where the white nationalists are the Palestinians.

In some bizarre parallel universe perhaps. Where your brain lives.

Never mind.

How about actually addressing the point?

You are saying that Palestinian violence is an acceptable response to being displaced by a flood of non-Palestinians.

One of the driving forces behind white supremacy is they are worried about becoming a minority in the US. How is this different? Why is it not acceptable for them to attack non-whites, especially immigrants?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because there wasn't a war. The displacements happened when the Palestinians (as part of the Arabs) opted for the path of genocide.

That's funny. Honest zionists at the time (and after) and honest pro-Israeli historians, openly admit what happened, and yet you deny it. That is actually hilarious. If you even had half an ounce of sense, instead of denying it (because it clearly and obviously did happen, deliberately) you'd say yes it happened but, like them you'd try to justify it. Lol. But that you deny it is black Orwellian humour, where the facts of history are rewritten. Wherever you get your version of what happened from, the writers of it are using you as a stooge. You're a stooge, and you don't even know it. You need to go read some reliable sources. The Jews enacted a policy of ethnic cleansing, during the war (yes, there was a war; the arabs resisted the imposition of the proposed state of Israel by the UN). There is no doubt. They did so because they knew it would be necessary in order to establish a new Jewish state. The only relevant question is whether they were justified or not. They felt they were. You deny it even happened the way it did. What do you even mean, there wasn't a war? Of course there was a war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947–1949_Palestine_war

You're mixing up the timeline.

In the time before 1948 there was a lot of immigration (and not just Jewish--the Palestinian population grew faster than simple reproduction) but no war.

The owners of the territory decided to split it. The Jews didn't like the split but accepted it, the Arabs didn't like the split and chose the path of genocide. The Jews knew what was coming and so of course prepared for the war. That doesn't mean they wanted it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hamas, who control the Gaza strip, want to throw the Jews out of Israel and don't mind annihilating them to achieve that. Beyond that, they would be in favour of wiping all jews off the face of the earth, because they are virulently anti-semitic. This is no big secret.

And yet you defend them. Why?