UNHCR to investigate Israel for possible war crimes

Oooh ooh oh,

wish to add @HLD DMR to my list of left wing pussies
 

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
Ah, touched a nerve then???
You'll need to try a good deal harder than that. Perhaps start by putting the bottle down.

Believe it or not, and doubtless you won't, but I am actually interested in learning about the subject matter and the various motivations that have generated such intractable positions.

You do absolutely nothing to further the debate. Indeed, the sort of rubbish you post is emblematic of the entire problem.
 
My bold.. that statement is not true. There may have been some displacement of some people BUT in the main the Israelis tried to persuade the Arabs to stay. This did not suit the various Arab leaders who issued instructions to leave and in some cases forced it. This article goes in to some detail on the situation.. Including one of the earlier possible solutions which was partition, which was totally rejected by the Arabs despite efforts by the Israeli's to persuade them to stay. The Palestinian Exodus in 1948 | The Institute for Palestine Studies
snip "It has been noted that well-to-do Arabs had taken an "extended vacation" to Lebanon or Egypt in the earlier fighting of 1936-39. With this option open, it should not be surprising that many who had the opportunity to leave would do so again. [22]
In this same period, the Zionists may have had some motivation for preventing the exodus from becoming widespread. The Zionists were determined to prove to world opinion that the Partition Resolution was reasonable and workable. Second thoughts already were being expressed by both Britain and the US as to the advisability of turning over nearly half of Palestine to the Zionists - an area in which 46 percent of the population would still be Arab. The violent Arab reaction to the Partition Plan and the willingness of the local population to resist caused second thoughts at the UN and elsewhere, thoughts which the Zionists were anxious to dispel"
.
A very interesting post, for two reasons.

First, the article you reference appears to be very well written and balanced. It's the first paper I've read that attempts to cut through the propaganda and dispel the myths.

Second, and somewhat surprisingly, the article simply doesn't support your contentions. Indeed, what is more surprising is that it talks to precisely the type of selective quoting and propaganda that your post embodies. This is dealt with under the section entitled "The Problem With Bias".

Within this section, the article states:

"According to Zionist historians, the Arabs in Palestine were asked to stay and live as citizens in the Jewish state. Instead, they chose to leave, either because they were unwilling to live with the Jews, or because they expected an Arab military victory which would annihilate the Zionists. They thought they could leave temporarily and return at their leisure. Later, an additional claim was put forth, namely that the Palestinians were ordered to leave, with radio broadcasts instructing them to quit their homes. The implications of these arguments are obvious; despite the best intentions of the Zionists, the Arabs chose to leave, thus they forfeited their rights to the land, and must bear responsibility for the solution to their plight."

It goes on to say:

" The Arab view of history has maintained that the Palestinians did not leave their homes voluntarily, were expelled by Zionist aggression, and, as they were expelled, maintain their right to return. Sources sympathetic to the Arab viewpoint have seen in the events of 1948 the fulfilment of a long dreamed-of Zionist plan to rid Palestine of its Arab population, thus forcibly transforming Palestine into a Jewish state."

In regard to your "they left of their own accord" comment, on dealing with inherent bias, the paper states:

"Even more striking is the fact that the same sources can be used to prove totally conflicting points. For example, Marie Syrkin, a Zionist writer, cites an article in al-Shaab, January 30, 1948, criticizing the wealthy Arabs who were leaving as proof that these Arabs left when they did in anticipation of an eventual Arab victory. This and other like articles which Syrkin cites have been used by authors intent on proving that the Arabs were urged to stay, even in this early phase. Moreover, many quotes can be taken out of context and made to fit the particular point which the author is trying to make."

And, further:

"Also to be recognized are problems dealing with the protagonists which point up the unique nature of this phenomenon. The Palestinians who left in 1948 are frequently referred to as "refugees." This term is commonly accepted to mean civilians who leave their homes in wartime. What is unique about these "refugees" is that they did not want to leave their homes and for 31 years have refused to consider any arrangements which do not include provisions for their return. The Germans who fled from the USSR after World War II, the Hindus and Muslims who fled from Pakistan and India respectively in 1947, and the Jews who left Arab countries after 1948 all have no wish to return to their former countries; the Palestinians wish only to return. Moreover, whatever the original causes of the exodus were, since August 1948 the Israeli government has been on record as refusing to allow this return. Thus when we speak of "refugees" it must be understood that we are not using this term in the traditional sense".

In its conclusions, the paper states (my bold):

"In its most simple, perhaps crudest form, the Palestinian exodus was the result of the establishment of a Zionist state with all that this entailed. The Zionist inability to conceive of a place for the native Arab population in its structure, its view of "the Arabs" as a single, irreconcilable foe and the desire to make the state "as Jewish as England is English" meant that the removal of the Palestinians was seen as a desirable outcome which should be actively or passively pursued. Justice and prudence both insist that Israel must reverse this ideology and attempt to rectify the past if it is ever to gain acceptance into the area. It should be clear to the Israelis that faits accomplis are in the long run self-defeating; Israel can only win peace by accommodating itself to the region and this must surely entail rectification of the continuing injustice and tragedy of the situation stemming from the Palestinian exodus of 1948."

Again, thanks for posting the link. The paper was very informative, as much for its setting out some indisputable historical facts as for its dealing with the myth and propaganda on both sides.

Perhaps now you'll refrain from smashing the mong button and engage constructively.
 
Last edited:
You'll need to try a good deal harder than that. Perhaps start by putting the bottle down.

Believe it or not, and doubtless you won't, but I am actually interested in learning about the subject matter and the various motivations that have generated such intractable positions.

You do absolutely nothing to further the debate. Indeed, the sort of rubbish you post is emblematic of the entire problem.
If you are interested in what people think now on a wide variety of subjects then check out this guy's videos. People send him questions then he goes round Israel and the West Bank asking the questions and recording the answers.

Corey Gil-Shuster
 
Nice to see you back.

@Bravo_Bravo has shown his true colours in this thread. I called him out as an anti-semite early on but my post appears to have vanished. His attacks on jews and Israel certainly put into context his relentless justification for the behaviours of certain choppy offy heady types. I took the bloke off ignore a long time ago as I believe in freedom of speech, but the bloke is clearly a jew hater. If he's unbiased as he claims, he should cut the state of Israel the same slack he's cut kiddy fiddlers and RoP subscribers for the last few years on here.

What an utter w@nker
Noting the IDF gave on occasion been somewhat robust makes me a Jew hater / supporter of paedophiles and Islamists, does it?

Poor, even by your low standards. You simpleton


Does your wife know you're posting while smashed, again?
 
If you are interested in what people think now on a wide variety of subjects then check out this guy's videos. People send him questions then he goes round Israel and the West Bank asking the questions and recording the answers.

Corey Gil-Shuster
While I apprciate the link, having read the circumstances around some of the various interviews, I'm hesitant to watch more.

If, for example, Palestinians are asked their thoughts on the holocaust from the middle of a war zone under active bombardment, should we be surprised by their emotional replies? In the same way, asking a Jewish Israeli settler's opinion of Palestinian rocket attacks will, unsurprisingly, provoke a similarly emotional response.

Both examples are far too subjective and "raw" to provide any "truth" to the narrative on the evolution of the current circumstances. This is why the paper cited above is interesting, insofar as it attempts to dispel subjectivity and address the objective in an academically rigorous way. Whether it succeeds is another matter altogether.
 
If, for example, Palestinians are asked their thoughts on the holocaust from the middle of a war zone under active bombardment, should we be surprised by their emotional replies?
When has he ever conducted interviews in 'the middle of a war zone under active bombardment'?
 
I’m trying to find the reference. It was mentioned in a piece I found on him when researching his background. I read a few, so it may take a while.
I wouldn't spend too much time on it if I was you, as I can promise you it is absolute nonsense.
 
But I won’t know if I don’t research it with an open mind. Perhaps you should try the same.
He has been doing this for 7 years. At no point in the last 7 years has anywhere in the West Bank been 'the middle of a war zone under active bombardment'.
 
Last edited:

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
Noting the IDF gave on occasion been somewhat robust makes me a Jew hater / supporter of paedophiles and Islamists, does it?

Poor, even by your low standards. You simpleton


Does your wife know you're posting while smashed, again?
Bravo as a member of this discussion it would be good form on your part to 'attack the opposition's agenda' and not make personal attacks. Bad form old chap!
 
Bravo as a member of this discussion it would be good form on your part to 'attack the opposition's agenda' and not make personal attacks. Bad form old chap!
I can only assume you have the poster I quoted on ignore.
 
You'll appreciate the difference in a place being "mentioned" in a hieroglyph and being formally recognised as a nation state.

Indeed, "Palestine" is equally well described in ancient texts:

"The first appearance of the term "Palestine" was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece when Herodotus wrote of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê" between Phoenicia and Egypt in The Histories" (Timeline of the name "Palestine" - Wikipedia).
I wasn't questioning the existence of any named part of the region before 1948.

And all that time populated by Jews and arabs or at the time after the Romans exiled the majority of the Jews, Phoenician, Greek and Romans.

No mention of palestinians though.

edit
Bit more up to date?
During a meeting with leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1976, Syrian President Hafiz al-Asad referred to Palestine as a region of Syria, as Southern Syria. He then went on to tell the Palestinians: "You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Do not forget one thing: there is no Palestinian people, no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria! You are an integral part of the Syrian people and Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the real representatives of the Palestinian people."
My bold.
 
Last edited:
The Palestinians are 100% their own worst enemy.
Every country that took them in got bitten as it tried to feed them. They've done such a good job, no one wants them.

The NEXT biggest enemy of the Palestinians is UNWRA

The `Palestinians' are the perennial 'refugeees' under UN auspices.
UNWRA registers 5th generation 'Palestinian' children born into settled lives in the surrounding countries as 'refugees'.

Yes, you read that right, children born of parents who've been living in Lebanon and Jordon since 1947 are still classified as 'refugees' by the UN.
 

goodoldboy

MIA
Book Reviewer
Nice to see you back.

@Bravo_Bravo has shown his true colours in this thread. I called him out as an anti-semite early on but my post appears to have vanished. His attacks on jews and Israel certainly put into context his relentless justification for the behaviours of certain choppy offy heady types. I took the bloke off ignore a long time ago as I believe in freedom of speech, but the bloke is clearly a jew hater. If he's unbiased as he claims, he should cut the state of Israel the same slack he's cut kiddy fiddlers and RoP subscribers for the last few years on here.

What an utter w@nker
Now that you've got that off your chest why don't you give us your opinion on the Israeli / Palestinian problem?
 

Latest Threads

Top