Rabbi says would hold Kabbalah ritual calling for PM's death

[Scurrilous]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/477956.html

<snip>

"Jerusalem police are stepping up their probe of phoned threats to murder Prime Minister Ariel Sharon if the Gaza disengagement plan is not called off. On Tuesday night Rabbi Yossi Dayan, a former member of the outlawed Kach party, declared on Channel 2 that he would be prepared to carry out a ceremony putting a curse on Sharon.


The ceremony, called Pulsa Denura, was carried out before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in 1995.

Dayan, a resident of Kiryat Arba, said that he would be willing to conduct the ceremony if other rabbis instructed him to do so, and added that when he was asked to perform the ceremony against Rabin, he did so.

The rabbi said that the security services and the police had questioned about this. "We are forbidden from talking now. We cannot pray. We cannot think. We cannot feel," Dayan said. "The head of the Security Service, Dichter says that there are people wishing that Sharon would die. I am among them. What? Can't I wish?" he said."

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Crystal Method]

2. This is huge.

I wonder why this hasn't received further attention. The implications for both sides are astounding.

[XanaX]

4. Now, What If...

Sharon were to be assassinated. For argument's sake, let's say by someone on the Israeli Right who is opposed to the Gaza withdrawal.(BTW, I think Yigal Amir is a patsy who have liked to have killed Rabin, but didn't. Google Barry Chamish for more info). How would the world react? Would the world suddenly see Sharon as "martyr for peace?"

[IA_Seth]

5. Not to me....

Sharon would be a man who played with fire and was burned by it.

I do not advocate violence by either side here, but Sharon knew who he was getting involved with from the beginning. Unfortunately he has done nothing to discourage these ultra-right wing freaks in Israel and if anything, has only strengthened their resolve.

[XanaX]

6. Huh?

"Sharon knew who he was getting involved with from the beginning"...huh?


Ethnically-cleansing the Gaza strip of Jews certainly seems a tad "discouraging."

[IA_Seth]

7. I suppose from your perspective...

I suppose if you see pulling illegal settlements from an occupied territory as "ethnic-cleansing of jews" it may be discouraging, however that seems a bit of stretch to me.

He pandered to the hardcore likud rightists for a long while, and now that he is trying to conform with international law the righties want him gone.

Need any further explanation?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IA_Seth]

9. so....

Using your own logic, that if Jews can't live there its ethnic cleansing....

Wouldn't the fact that Palestinians can not live in the current Jewish settlements, and not use their roads, constitute ethnic cleansing on the Israeli's part?

Also, are you saying that Sharon is guilty of ethnic-cleansing of Jews in Gaza?

Interesting point of view ya got there.

[XanaX]

10. I'm saying...

that if you take people out of their homes and say "You can't live here because of you are Jews," then that is ethnic-cleansing.

Calling it anything but that is intellectually dishonest. But that shouldn't be a problem, now should it?

[IA_Seth]

11. So what is the answer to my question?

Does that same "intellectual honesty" apply to jews who tell the palestinians they can't live there?

Is Sharon guilty of ethnic-cleansing of jews?

[XanaX]

12. The answer is

Yes, if the Gaza pullout takes place, then Sharon will be ethnically-cleansing the area of Jews.

Housing discrimination takes place on both sides of the conflict, but it is not ethnic-cleansing. A Jew cannot buy a house in Gaza City, Rafah, or any other predominantly Arab community in the territories or for that matter an Arab town within the 1949 armistice lines. While you won't find any Jews in Jaljulya, Kafr Qassem or Tira to name just a few, you will find plenty of Arabs in Lod, Ramle, and Be'er Sheva.

[IA_Seth]

15. Oh ok, thats REAL clear.

So by dismantling the illegal settlements in occupied land (aka, asking the Israeli's to move - and having them get paid to do so), Sharon is guilty of ethnic cleansing, but not letting Arabs live in some of those same illegal settlements is just housing discrimination?

No bias there at all, nope, none.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IA_Seth]

18. Likud Policy

This is who I was talking about...who are you talking about? I even got one from your favorite site...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5738906/


The building announcement appeared to be an attempt to defuse resistance from rebels in Sharon’s Likud party angered by a bid to bring the center-left opposition Labor party into government to boost the prime minister’s Gaza pullout plan.

But it failed, and the party dealt Sharon a humiliating rebuff on Wednesday.

The plan to quit the Gaza Strip and uproot 21 Jewish settlements there, along with four others in the West Bank, is strongly opposed by the Likud settler lobby that says the withdrawal is tantamount to “rewarding Palestinian terrorism.”


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/likud.html


Zionism is the liberation movement of the Jewish people, and its fulfilment is at the top of the list of priorities of the Government of Israel. Immigration will be increased, and settlement will be strengthened. The decision to freeze settlements will be rescinded.


http://www.me-ontarget.com/archarticles/arch040506/040504likudreferendum.htm


Yesterday, the Likud rejected the referendum on PM Ariel Sharon’s “Disengagement Plan”. 59.5% voted against and 39.7% in favor. Many observers criticize Sharon for severely underestimating the hard line right wing in his own party since the PM would not have agreed on such an initiative with US President Bush if he knew of its future rejection by his own supporters.

So, in the words of Arnold..."What Choo Talkin Bout Willis?"

[XanaX]

20. Gotta hate something, right?

So the Likud PARTY policy is anti-pullout, despite many Likud members (though not most it seems) in favor of it. I stand corrected.
So, since Sharon wants this pullout, he is going against the wishes of his party. So you're currently anti-Likud, but pro-Sharon, insofar as it relates to his ethnic-cleansing of the Gaza Jews? Great.

[IA_Seth]

21. Wrong ASSumption there.

You are right about one thing, you do stand corrected.

However to color me pro-Sharon is quite off. I am anti-Likud and anti-Sharon. I suppose I would consider myself pro-Justice if I had to declare it.

Sharon is an enabler. He enabled the IDF to be hijacked by right wing, violent imitators of jewish ideals. There will be NO peace until these jagoffs are all out of power (similar to the righties and Bush here in the US).

I am off work now and will be going home. It should be interesting to see how Crystal Method does on your research later.

Bye!

[XanaX]

23. But apparently you do

So Sharon could kick all the Jews out of Gaza, but you'd still be anti?
That hatred must run good and deep!
The IDF hijacked---
you know this how?
And now you're an expert on "Jewish ideals?"
How versatile.
Yet unlikely.

[IA_Seth]

44. Yep

Sharon is a piece of work, and regardless of whatever minor steps toward justice he makes now I am still anti-Sharon.

I guess I would say the same for Bush. He could roll out a reasonable health plan, roll back the tax cuts on the wealthy, etc. and I would still be anti-Bush because of all of the problems to which he has contributed.

Irresponsible leadership can not be made up for with one act.

As for my expertise on Jewish ideals, I guess you caught me. I guess I just assumed that Jewish ideals wouldn't condone indiscriminate shootings and human rights violations.

[IA_Seth]

19. Excuse my thickness...

But does your "intellectual honesty" really allow you to think that no Palestinians were removed from their homes to create the current settlements?

Uhhh.....yeah I am thinking they probably were.

Sheesh.

[XanaX]

22. Probably?

Probably? Oh, yeah, that settles it then.

You obviously have absolutely NO first-hand knowledge of the landscape. There is plenty of uninhabited land in both the so-called West Bank and Gaza.

Your thickness is NOT excused.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. So what?

There is plenty of uninhabited land in both the so-called West Bank and Gaza.

There was plenty of uninhabited land in the so-called East Timor prior to it becoming a state. Does that mean you think Israelis could have just moved on in and expropriated whatever land they took a liking to? What's the difference when it comes to the West Bank and Gaza Strip then?

Violet...

[XanaX]

45. Are You Aware

The word "Jew" was originally a geographic distinction meaning a native of Judea, or the southern "West Bank" as you like to call it. Despite the fact that the Romans ethnically-cleansed the Jews from the land, and later the Muslims occupied it and settled there, the Jews' historical connection to their homeland and Jerusalem was a constant, figuring prominently in their daily prayers. The Jews did not originate in East Timor.

[The Crystal Method]

62. Yes.

But some Palestinians are directly related to Jews suggesting that they both have common ancestors. Some remained Jews and others followed Christianity and Islam.

So your point?

[XanaX]

65. The point is

The Jews came HOME, and are exercising their right of self-determination. Not much we can do if you and the Arabs have a problem with that.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. I thought Israel was the Jewish state...

The West Bank and Gaza Strip have never been part of the state of Israel. What's wrong with going 'home' to Israel? Illegally settling on territory that doesn't belong to Israel is in no way exercising a right of self-determination. What's being exercised is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. So, yes. I have a problem with it and I think anyone who actually gives a shit about the right of self-determination for all, not just a select group, would also have a problem with it...

Violet...

[XanaX]

79. "Illegal" is inaccurate

even according to UN resolution 242 which calls for the exchange of "territories" and specifically, intentionally, not "THE territories." Nor is the prsence of Jews in disputed areas contrary to the Geneva Convention, no matter how much you'd like it to be.

The so-called West Bank is very much part of the historical Jewish homeland. Simply because it fell outside the 1949 armistice lines doesn't make it any less so. Most of Judaism's holiest sites are located there. When the 1917 Balfour Declaration called for the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in Mandatory "Palestine," it consisted of what is now Israel, the disputed territories, and Jordan. In 1922, Churchill sliced off Eastern "Palestine," renamed it "Trans-Jordan," and forbid the purchase or settlement of Jews there, restricting them to the 40% that remained of "Palestine."

The problem with many so-called "progressives" is that they are in favor of self-determination for all peoples---EXCEPT the Jews.

[Violet_Crumble]

81. No, it's very accurate...

Resolution 242 has been discussed at great length in this forum. The right-wing Israeli interpretation of it is really quite stupid. I'll try to find you the links to where it's been discussed before, because you could actually learn something from reading it :)

Feel free to explain to me why moving the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory isn't a violation of the Geneva Conventions. This should be interesting. And you'll get brownie points if you leave the right-wing Israeli talking points like 'disputed' at home..

Who gives a stuff what holy sites are where? There's a fair few Christian holy sites in that area. Maybe you also believe Christians can go build settlements, and inflict human rights violations on the existing non-Christian population? Because that's exactly what yr arguing about Judaism...

Uh, you should try reading the Balfour Declaration before trying to claim that it gave all of Palestine to anyone. It didn't...

I've been in this forum a long time and to be blunt with you, the vast majority of progressives I've encountered are in favour of self-determination for all people with no exceptions. That's why you'll find that while many progressives have problems with the occupation, they totally support the right of self-determination for Israelis, which is why they support the continued existance of Israel...

Now, if you want to try claiming that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are or should be part of Israel, I think a really good argument could be put up that it's that sort of stance that is promoting the destruction of Israel. Then again, if that stance is accompanied by support of transfer, that'd be a way to get around that :)

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

88. Do you support a two-state solution?

If you do, I'm not understanding the reasons why you would. It's just that if I believed that Israel was entitled to the West Bank and I denied the existance of the Palestinian people, there wouldn't be any reason for me to support the West Bank and Gaza Strip becoming a Palestinian state. Am I missing something?

Violet...

[XanaX]

92. Yes, you are

I'd love to see a peaceful 2 state solution.

Neither side is going to get everything it wants or feels it deserves.

Compromise will ultimately be the key.

Many of us were quite hopeful until September 2000.

[Violet_Crumble]

95. Then tell me what I'm missing...

Why do you think the Palestinian people should have their own state made up of the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

Violet...

[IA_Seth]

43. You are crackin me up...

Yeah, I said probably, my bad. I guess my sarcasm wasn't detected there, eh?

My thickheaded-ness is always getting in the way.

There "probably" isn't anyone living a lot of places in Iowa, but I "bet" if I just set up shop and invited some friends I couldn't throw out "ethnic cleansing" as a defense if someone told me to move.

But that is just me being indecisive again.

[Djinn]

32. The removal isn't based on ethnicity

it's based on those settlements being ILLEGAL.

If a bunch of Ugandan's(for example) went to Israel and were able to set up camps and settlements in the middle of Haifa, the removal of those by Israeli authorities wouldn't be based on the fact that the settlers were Ugandan but the fact that they were there ILLEGALLY

[The Crystal Method]

28. I'll bet you are against the Right of Return.

Those Palestinians that were chased from there homes in 1948 and again in 1967 should be allowed to return, yet they cannot. What puts the icing on the cake is Jewish settlers can live anywhere they please and yet you are still annoyed.

For what it's worth, I don't think the settlements should be dismantled. Just annex the damned territories already and grant everyone citizenship.

Something quite odd that Woody Allen, who wasn't born in Israel can be welcomed in Israel proper and in the Occupied Territories yet Edward Said, who was born in Jerusalem was not allowed to return to the country of his birth. It is unfortunate that he is dead now.

[XanaX]

30. The "Right of Return"

Is another way of saying "The destruction of Israel."
So the world gains another Muslim Arab country, bringing the total to 23, while the Jews have 0 countries. You'd like that, eh?

BTW, the vast majority of "Palestinian" Arabs left of their own volition. But you already knew that. Are you aware of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands? http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/video/pierre_rehov_films.htm
But they don't much matter, do they?

When you consider that around 100 million people were resettled as a result of territorial compromises during the 20th century alone, it's very interesting that only the Great Arab Nation has not chosen this route, instead actively perpetuating the suffering of their "beloved" brethren.

Edward Said was not even a refugee, having left in 1944. I don't know that he ever even tried to return. But the story sounds more engaging the way you tell it.

[Darranar]

31. Yes, I suppose fleeing Israeli attacks could be considered...

leaving "of their own volition", they could have just waited and been expelled or shot.

Jewish refugees from Arab countries should be given just compensation, as should Palestinian refugees.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

68. Copyright notice

DU respects the use of copyrighted material. This generally means a citation can not exceed more than 3-4 paragraphs.

Lithos
I/P Moderator

[XanaX]

38. Hooray For You

You've discovered the Lavon Affair and Naiem Giladi. However, this disgraceful episode does not support your allegation that "most" Jewish refugees from Arab lands are the result of secret Zionist treachery.

You'll have to do better than just telling me that the Arab High Command told the inhabitants to stay put. (You'll also have to do much much better than your hilariously inadequate "proof" al-Aqsa is separate from Fatah). But I'm sure we could both provide links proving the other is mistaken.

How does the "Right of Return" equal turning Israel into another Muslim state? Do the math.

Oh yes, and let's not forget who is considered a "Palestinian refugee" according to the UN----anyone who left (and their descendants?!?) who lived in "Palestine" arriving anytime up until 1946. (What a sad joke that is). The fact is, the Arab nation could have solved this conflict at any point---even today---if they would only accept the principle of population exchange.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. What's such a sad joke about that?

Oh yes, and let's not forget who is considered a "Palestinian refugee" according to the UN----anyone who left (and their descendants?!?) who lived in "Palestine" arriving anytime up until 1946. (What a sad joke that is).

I hope yr not going to try to claim that most Arab Palestinians living in Palestine prior to 1946 were just recent arrivals from elsewhere. And of course descendants of the original refugees are also refugees. Why wouldn't they be? Gosh, maybe if Israel had done the right thing and allowed people to return to their homes after hostilities had ceased, then it wouldn't be an issue...

'Arab nation'? What Arab state are you talking about? Can you possibly be a bit more specific?

Violet...

[XanaX]

46. The Arab League

that's who. The same kind-hearted folk who passed resolutions prohibiting Arab countries (with the exception of Jordan) from granting citizenship and other basic rights to their "Palestinian" brethren.

And yes, there was a HUGE influx of Muslims to "Palestine" due to the economic opportunities generated by the Jewish presence. (You're free to look into it). That accounts for the prevalence of surnames such as "al-Masri," (The Egyptian) "al-Mughrabi," (The North African) and "al-Hindi" (The Indian) among the "Palestinian" population.

[The Crystal Method]

49. Interesting.

So the original inhabitants are not allowed to return but immigrants from New York, Eastern Europe and Russia can immigrate en masse.

[XanaX]

52. Refugees?

Some of these people have moved all of 10 miles from one place to another (for instance, the Ashkelon area to Gaza, or from a village near Jerusalem to a refugee camp on the other side of town), and subsequently let themselves and all their descendants languish as "refugees," courtesy of the UN.



The "Right of Return" and the "Refugees" are simply a weapon with which to threaten Israel.

[The Crystal Method]

55. Now you are the one kidding.

They did this to themselves I suppose.

Nice excuse.

[The Crystal Method]

57. Deleted by me.

Wrong post.

[Violet_Crumble]

80. Nothing like blaming refugees for being refugees...

Phillip Ruddock would love yr post. How on earth do you come to the conclusion that people who became refugees due to war are to blame for becoming refugees? Sorry, but I must have missed that part of history where Israel allowed them all to return to their homes, and they told Israel to bugger off because they just really love being those languishing refugees....

Hey, this is a whole new progessive way of viewing refugees! All this time I've been thinking my country's to blame for sticking refugees in detention centres all decked out with barbed wire and run by a US company that runs prisons, but now I do the Shift The Blame routine, I see how wrong I was. All those refugees let themselves become refugees and we should not focus on my country's policy of keeping them locked up for years. No! Instead we should spread the word that it's all the fault of those refugees who allow themselves to languish away!

You appear to be trying to blame the UN for the Palestinian refugees being refugees. What is it you would have liked the UN to have done when the issue first arose? Not do anything to help them at all?

Violet...

[XanaX]

89. Moving 10 miles

and remaining within "Palestine" does that really sound like a "refugee" to you?

The UN finances, administrates and perpetuates this cynical fraud.

Oh, and here's a nice "Palestinian-refugee" site that discusses (and makes apologies for the lack of) "Palestinian-refugee" rights in Arab states.

http://www.shaml.org/publications/monos/mono11.htm

[Violet_Crumble]

97. The refugees lived in what's now Israel...

They weren't allowed to return to their homes in Israel after the war ended. That sounds like a refugee to me...

You have a problem with the UN assisting the refugees. Would you rather have had them all starve?

Did you bother reading the link I posted on the Palestinian refugees? It would have given you a bit of depth on the issue. Also, I'm quite aware of the way some Arab states have mistreated the refugees. Are you suggesting we focus on that to the complete exclusion of Israel's responsibility?

Violet...

[XanaX]

99. deleted

[XanaX]

54. How about the 300,000...

"Palestinians" expelled (ethnically-cleansed) from Kuwait during and following the 1991 Gulf War? That's a little more current.
Why is it against the law for "Palestinians" to own property or become citizens of Lebanon or Syria, places where these "refugees" have been living for 55 years? Because the Arab League decreed it.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. The Arab League isn't an Arab state...

Kind of basic Sesame-street stuff, but let's play one of these things is not like the others: Arab League, UN, ASEAN, France, EU.


Not being familiar with resolutions from the Arab League, can you show me the ones that prohibit Arab countries from granting citizenship and other basic rights to Palestinian refugees? And I'd like to see the actual resolutions, not a link to some right-wing crap doing a creative interpretation act...

Typing HUGE in capital letters doesn't make what yr claiming any more correct than putting dit-dits round the word Palestinian makes the Palestinian people dissappear. Considering some early Zionists were pointing out that there was a Palestinian population there prior to the Second Aliyah puts yr Joan Peters inspired claims at odds with what Zionists there at the time were saying. And what point are you trying to make about surnames? That you took a look at the Palestine White Pages from around 1912 and discovered nothing but those three surnames? I don't get it. My surname originated in England. And just the same as Palestinians with the surnames you mentioned (assuming the translation is correct), it's pretty damn silly to wave that round as some sort of proof that any of us would be recent arrivals to where we live...

Violet...

[XanaX]

85. Now I Understand Completely

Any terminolgy you disagree with is a "right-wing talking point."

And any sources I might provide from "Jewish" sources are going to be automatically considered "right-wing."

You draw assumptions in many cases that simply are not there, e.g. the Balfour Declaration and 242.

I don't have a problem with Benny Morris, not since he's finally recently "seen the light." Generally, though, his academic "findings" were tailored to fit his pre-conceived conclusions.

Over 80% of the "refugees" still live in "Palestine."

The "Palestinian refugees" are the only "refugees" in history that have handed the title down through the generations.

The Arabs control millions of square miles of territory, yet they do nothing but provide lip service to help solve the "refugee" problem. (Arab League resolution 462 http://faculty.winthrop.edu/haynese/mlas/ALSessions.html)

I put "Palestinian" in quotes because until 1948, "Palestinian" generally referred to Jews from "Palestine." Only after the creation of Israel did the local Arabs develop a national identity and nationalist aspirations.

Why didn't the "Palestinian" Arabs declare their own state concurrently with Israel?

[Violet_Crumble]

93. No, unfortunately you got it wrong...

Grover would be very dissapointed! ;)

No, I actually do disagree with terminology that isn't right-wing. It's just in this case, the terminology yr relying on are stock-standard right-wing Israeli talking points....

Huh? Yr source is considered right-wing, because it was. Whether or not it's from a Jewish source has nothing at all to do with it, and that's a road it'd be advisable you not travel any further down...

I've read the Balfour Declaration. It's not an assumption to say that it didn't give specific territory to anyone. Nor did it say anything at all about giving the whole of Palestine to the Zionist movement. It's a short little document, so maybe you've unearthed the Secret Clause that no-one but you has ever read? ;)

Same for Resolution 242. Would you actually like to get pointed to some past discussions in this forum where the right-wing Israeli interpretation of it is well and truly refuted? Or don't you need to read anything?

I suspect you haven't read much of Benny Morris at all. You don't have a problem with someone since they suddenly trotted out a load of racist rantings? That's just lovely. Do you know what he had to say? If not, you really should read it. What's interesting though is that he didn't even attempt to do an about-turn on his work. He more than anyone else is aware that it can't be debunked. So he took the atrocities, the expulsions, and all the wrongdoings and argued that it should have been finished off back in 1948. You have no problem with that??

Over 80% of the refugees still live in 'Palestine'? Newsflash - there's no Palestine now. There's Israel (where the refugees lived) and there's the Occupied Territories (where they now reside). Surely yr not trying to claim that Israel and the Occupied Territories are the same entity, therefore there's no refugees?

Wrong. Children of "Refugees" in Australian detention centres are also "refugees"...

Yr very critical of the Arab states in regards to the refugee problem, yet absolve Israel of any responsibility. Considering it's Israel that refused to allow them to return to their homes after hostilities had ceased, how do you come to that conclusion?

Until 1948 a Palestinian was Jews or Arabs living in Palestine, though the Jewish community pre-1948 gets called the Yishuv in a lot of stuff I've been reading. And Arab Palestinian national identity and aspirations were around prior to 1948. So knock off the dit-dits because it just makes it appear as though yr denying the existance of a group of people and that sort of denial is rather ugly stuff..

How would have the Arab Palestinians have declared their own state? Each of them write individually to the UN or something? Considering both Israel and Jordan were set on making sure that no Palestinian state came into being, I doubt any declaration of statehood would have made any difference...

Violet...

[XanaX]

94. Vivid imagination!

You're attributing things to me that I never said nor implied.

To what "right-wing" source are referring? Which "Jewish" sources are acceptable to you, oh all-knowing arbiter of what is un-biased?

And you lay all the blame for the "refugee" mess (and the Arabs not declaring their state) at Israel's feet. If they would have accepted partition, then yes, a letter to the UN would have probably done the trick.

When I say "Palestine", I am referring to the Disputed Territoties.

I'll say it again: Population Exchange.

[Violet_Crumble]

96. Try reading yr post that I replied to...

The source you posted was a right-wing one. You claimed that I label sources right-wing because they're Jewish, which is a load of crap. Personally I don't give a shit whether a source is Jewish or not, and I'm not sure why yr bringing it up...

Where exactly did I lay all the blame for the refugee problem at Israel's feet? Or does acknowledging that Israel's one of the parties that holds responsibility get seen as laying all the blame on Israel? You haven't explained how Israel is absolved from any blame at all, btw...

The Occupied Territories (note: they're not disputed) and Israel are two separate things. The Palestinian refugees did not originally reside in the Occupied Territories. They lived in Israel...

You can say population exchange till yr blue in the face, but I'm totally opposed to the forcible movement from one territory to another of people based on ethnicity...

Violet...

[XanaX]

98. Right-Wing?!? Give me a break

There was absolutely no commentary whatsoever on that page. None.

It simply LISTED the sessions of the Arab League. And the server itself is a university.

Your bias would be laughable, if it weren't so sad.

[XanaX]

100. Since You Say

that you are "...totally opposed to the forcible movement from one territory to another of people based on ethnicity..." then you're against the uprooting of settlements, I assume?

Go on. Try and spin it. Should be good for a chuckle.

[XanaX]

101. Objectivity? 2 State Solution?

Checked your blog.

Links to Electronic Intifada and ISM. Murderers and those that support them. Lovely.

I'm done here.

[Darranar]

102. "seen the light"?

Supporting ethnic cleansing and massacres is now a good thing?

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Crystal Method]

48. Here you go.

You've discovered the Lavon Affair and Naiem Giladi. However, this disgraceful episode does not support your allegation that "most" Jewish refugees from Arab lands are the result of secret Zionist treachery.

There have been other episodes, this being the most famous.


You'll have to do better than just telling me that the Arab High Command told the inhabitants to stay put. (You'll also have to do much much better than your hilariously inadequate "proof" al-Aqsa is separate from Fatah). But I'm sure we could both provide links proving the other is mistaken.


Please see below:


Since the birth of the refugee question, Israeli propaganda has steadfastly held that, in response to Arab radio broadcasts urging flight to clear the field for the invading Arab armies, the Palestinians departed of their own volition - indeed, despite Zionist entreaties that they remain in place. This claim was conclusively demolished by British scholar Erskine Childers and Palestinian scholar Walid Khalidi as far back as the early 1960s. They reported that the back files of the Near East monitoring stations of the British and American governments (both of which covered not only all the radio stations in the Near East but the local newspapers as well) contained no evidence of such Arab orders. This finding, however, had little, if any, impact on mainstream scholarship. (1) Benny Morris has now lent his Israeli imprimatur to the finding, making it far more difficult to ignore. As Walid Khalidi pungently observed, 'Morris ... unequivocally and commendably confirms the death of the (albeit long-deceased) Arab evacuation orders'. (2) The relevant passsages of Birth read as follows:

I have found no contemporary evidence to show that either the leaders of the Arab states or the Mufti ordered or directly encouraged the mass exodus during April. It may be worth noting that for decades the policy of the Palestinian Arab leaders had been to hold fast to the soil of Palestine and to resist the eviction and displacement of the Arab communities. (p.66)

There is no evidence of that the Arab states and the AHC (Arab Higher Committee) wanted a mass exodus or issued blanket orders or appeals to the Palestinians to flee their homes (though in certain areas the inhabitants fo specific villages were ordered by Arab commanders of the AHC to leave, mainly for strategic reasons). (p. 129) (3)


(1) For background, see Christopher Hitchens's contribution, 'Broadcasts', in Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens (eds), Blaming the Victims, London, 1988.

(2) 'Plan Dalet: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine', in Journal of Palestine Studies, Autumn 1988, p.5

(3) This finding is indirectly confirmed in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Intelligence Branch Report, 'The Emigration of the Arabs of Palestine in the Period 1/12/1947-1/9/1948', which makes no mention of a general appeal by the Arab leadership ordering Palestinians to flee their homes and puts at '5 percent' the figure of Arabs who fled because of Arab commondas. (Morris recalculatesthat the actual percentage is higher, but 'no more than 10 percent'; cf. 1948, pp.85-6.)

The above is exerpted from Norman Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israel - Palestine Conflict. pp. 56-7

Oh yes, and let's not forget who is considered a "Palestinian refugee" according to the UN----anyone who left (and their descendants?!?) who lived in "Palestine" arriving anytime up until 1946. (What a sad joke that is). The fact is, the Arab nation could have solved this conflict at any point---even today---if they would only accept the principle of population exchange.

I have a better idea. Allow the settlers to stay put. Allow the refugees to return and then let Israel/Palestine be a unified nation with equal rights for all citizens.

[XanaX]

50. You're kidding again, right?

Norman Finkelstein and Benny Morris?

Hardly objective voices.

I have an idea. Why don't all the "Palestinians" go to any one of 22 Arab or 56 self-described Islamic nations, and let there be one Jewish country in the world. Makes as much if not more sense than your suggestion.

[Darranar]

51. Because where they are living is their home. n/t

[XanaX]

53. It's called territorial compromise

Over 100 million others were resettled during the 20th century---ONLY the "Palestinian" Arabs were left to rot. Every other population resettlement was ultimately settled by the parties.
Roughly 6-700,000 Arabs left "Palestine" in 1948, roughly 6-700,000 Jews left Arab lands for Israel around the same time. Call it even.

[The Crystal Method]

59. Call it a land grab.

Because that is exactly what it was then and is still now.

[Jim Sagle]

70. So live with it - unless you're ready to give America back to the Indians.

[XanaX]

73. Well Intentioned But Faulty Analogy

To really grasp the essence of the Jewish people to its land, one should look at them, not the "Palestinians" as the Indians (Native Americans).

[Jim Sagle]

74. I was being generous to the other side.

[XanaX]

75. Perhaps a tad too generous

[Darranar]

61. Why?

Since when is one injustice canceled out by another?

[Lithos]

69. It isn't cancelled out

However, you can never forget either.

So, in a pragmatic sense, this seems like a good point to start negotiations. Bring both issues to the table as they seem linked.

Personally, as I have stated before, I think that right of return for either party is inpractical, but that does not mean it should be ignored or "cancelled out". However, I would treat it more like a case of imminent domain, where an equitable settlement is paid by Israel to the Palestinian refugees and another equitable settlement paid by the various Arab member states to the Jewish refugees. Payment is to be directed solely to the individuals and families, not to the various states as that would effectively cancel out the effects of the dislocation.

L-

[Violet_Crumble]

76. I agree with you on the compensation bit...

But another equally important aspect is that there has to be official acknowledgement and apologies for what was done. That should apply to all refugees, no matter what particular group they belong to. And for those who are stateless, resettlement to a country they want to live in seems reasonable to me, though I've got the impression from some posts in this thread that they should get no choice in where they end up....

I get the feeling that Jews who were forced to leave Arab countries are used as a political tool by the Israeli govt in just as cynical a way as the Palestinian refugees are used by the Arab states....

Violet...

[Lithos]

87. Absolutely

But another equally important aspect is that there has to be official acknowledgement and apologies for what was done. That should apply to all refugees, no matter what particular group they belong to. And for those who are stateless, resettlement to a country they want to live in seems reasonable to me, though I've got the impression from some posts in this thread that they should get no choice in where they end up....

Acknowledgement and apologies are a very necessary and very critical part of any healing process.

I get the feeling that Jews who were forced to leave Arab countries are used as a political tool by the Israeli govt in just as cynical a way as the Palestinian refugees are used by the Arab states....

I have the same feeling as well. The segregation and ill-treatment of the Yemeni Jews who are one of the largest groups of Jews removed from Arab countries. is fairly well documented. They too were held in camps for many years with families separated, facing discrimination in the greater Israeli society, and babies forcibly removed for adoption into Ashkenazi households. Thankfully for the latter there has recently been an effort to reunite them with their birth families, but even now there is still a distinct societal disparity between Ashkenazi and the Mizrachi.

[XanaX]

91. Not to quibble

but the Yemeni Jewish community was actually one of the smaller ones to immigrate---around 50,000, compared to over 125,000 Iraqis and several hundred thousand Moroccans. Everything else you say, unfortunately, is accurate.

[The Crystal Method]

56. Norman Finkelstein is not objective?

Wow. I have no further use in debating with you.

Good day.

[XanaX]

60. Exactly---Finkelstein is not objective

Finkelstein is an avowed anti-Zionist. Therefore, he is "not objective." See how that works?

Your source says the IDF report "makes no mention" and "estimates." Solid stuff you got there.

Here's a few quotes from Arab leaders regarding the "refugee" problem:

The role of Arab leaders in urging the Arab population to leave is similarly well-documented. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, declared:

We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.

The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs:

This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re­enter and retake possession of their country.

In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948­49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:

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.

Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada al­Janub (August 16, 1948):

The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.


One refugee quoted in the Jordan newspaper, Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954), said:

The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.
Habib Issa said in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951):

The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.
And Jordan's King Abdullah, writing in his memoirs, blamed Palestinian leaders for the refugee problem:

The tragedy of the Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralyzed them with false and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs and 400 million Muslims would instantly and miraculously come to their rescue.


http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_refugees_arabs_why.php

[The Crystal Method]

63. LOL.

You call Finkelstein biased (he's using Israeli historical evidence) and you trot out palestinefacts.org.

How quaint.

[The Crystal Method]

64. And see post #58.

You are not being intellectually honest.

Which isn't really a surprise.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

71. Finkelstein ain't nuthin' but an Uncle Jake.

[The Crystal Method]

58. Please read.

Footnote number 3. It's historical record as confirmed by the IDF Military Intelligence Branch reports.

You just don't wish to see anything else but your view and then have the audacity to call others biased.

How quaint.

[Violet_Crumble]

84. That's interesting...

I just replied to a post of yrs where you were saying Benny Morris wasn't objective. Yet here you are stating that if the IDF records say something it's fact. Do you realise that Benny Morris' sources are predominantly Israeli military archives? Pick up a copy of 'The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited' and check out the footnotes...

On bias: Do you understand what bias is? Everyone to some extent holds a bias on issues. It's those who can discuss issues without letting their bias run rampant and blind them to alternate views that are right pains in the arses. They're the folk who have a one-dimensional view of complex issues, and only exist to shovel blame anywhere else but on whatever they think they're supporting...



Violet...

[XanaX]

86. Confused?

He's The Crystal Method, I am XanaX. The post referencing the IDF report is his.

[Violet_Crumble]

83. What's yr problem with Benny Morris?

I'd say given his personal feelings on the issue, his work is incredibly objective. Just curious, but do you actually know what his views are, or are you just assuming that because he unearthed some facts that do bring into question the traditional Israeli mythology of the founding of the state of Israel that he must suck?

Anyway, I'd love to know what you consider to be an objective voice. Anyone who puts dit-dits around the words Palestinian and refugees in order to make everyone aware that they're one of those folk who like denying the existance of a group of people? ;)

I have an idea about yr idea. It's a novel one as well! Why don't you stop and have a think about the groundbreaking concept of considering that the refugees are not cattle to be shoved around unwillingly, but real people who might actually want to choose where they reside?

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

39. What a load of cobblers...

If the refugees had been allowed by Israel to return to their homes in 1949, how exactly would that have destroyed Israel? The Right of Return is a right enshrined in international law, and despite what you appear to be thinking, it applies to people regardless of their ethnicity or religion...

It's highly doubtful that the 'vast majority' of Palestinians (btw, why do you put dit-dits round the word Palestinian?) left of their own volition. Some fled their homes out of fear, which is a higly understandable state of mind when a war's raging around you. Some fled due to the rumours and threats floating round, and others were expelled forcibly. I'm not aware that any of those reasons are justification for not allowing people to return to their homes after hostilities had ceased. Maybe you could explain how it is?

Also, where's this 'Greater Arab Nation' that yr talking about. Can you point it out on a map? Or are you just lumping all Arab states together into one massive group in a mistaken belief that they're all the same and all have the same goals and think exactly the same?

On Edward Said - I read in one of his books that his family left Jerusalem in 1947. I think on this one I'll tend to believe Edward Said...

Violet...

[XanaX]

47. Said said

"I think on this one I'll tend to believe Edward Said..."

Yeah, he'd have no reason to lie.


http://student.cs.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/glosses/weinerAttackOnSaid.html

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

82. No, he wouldn't have a reason to lie...

If you think he does, maybe you could fill me in on why?

I'm more inclined to believe him than some rightwing dimwit like the writer of that nonsense with an obvious and rather clumsy motive for trying to smear him...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

42. If you want to learn about the Right of Return...

Here's a report that is invaluable reading. Unfortunately it does get a tad more complex than the 'they want to destroy Israel!!!!' school of thought, which may mean it's incomprehensible to some who attempt to read it, but it's the sort of stuff people should be reading if they want to try to discuss Palestinian refugees and the right of return in any sort of serious way...

Palestinian Refugees and the Politics of Peacemaking

Violet...

[Darranar]

13. Removing illegal settlements isn't ethnic cleansing. n/t

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

25. It isn't even Likud's policy any more...

or at least not Sharon's.

[Darranar]

24. No, it's not...

but removing illegal settlements is not ethnic cleansing.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[XanaX]

34. If Sharon is only removing

Jews, then it is very much based on ethnicity, disputes over the legality of the communities notwithstanding.

YOU said "anti-semites;" I never did.

[Djinn]

35. that would be because they are the ones there illegally

unless of course they wish to give up their Israeli citizenship and the services that come with it - otherwise they should move back to Israel.

[The Crystal Method]

27. It would be ethnic cleansing to be sure.

So the wise course of action to take is to leave them there and grant the non-Jewish occupants of Gaza the right to vote and participate in Israeli government. Either that or let them be a part of an independent Palestinian state with the 1967 demarcation as the border.

I would prefer a binational state but that's just me. I wouldn't want to see anyone be ethnically cleansed.

[The Crystal Method]

26. No. I don't think so.

I've thought about that hypothetical. My thought is that any assasination for political reasons (like keeping the settlements in Gaza) would be worse than keeping Sharon alive. I wouldn't shed a tear if Sharon were to be assassinated but it is still wrong and invites lack of respect for the rule of law which is already sorely lacking.

[Scurrilous]

3. No indictment against “Pulsa Denura” volunteer

http://www.maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=11092

Attorney General decides insufficient grounds for charging Yossef Dayan with incitement

<snip>

"Yosef Dayan, who volunteered to cast a “Pulsa Denura” curse on Ariel Sharon, will not be charged with incitement.

The Pulsa Denura is an ancient medieval kabbalistic curse, believed by mystics and the superstitious to be a very powerful death curse, especially when cast during the period just before Yom Kippur."

<snip>

"The Attorney General and State Prosecution decided that despicable as they are, Dayan’s statement was not sufficient grounds to prosecute him for incitement."

[Aidoneus]

90. What can really be said about this?

Best of luck to them? :shrug:

I don't know. I hate the man, but these fools should realize that Ariel Sharon is actually the one thing keeping their Zionist existance in the area together. The alternatives are all either discredited hypocrites (Labor) or so unbelievably and openly fascist such that they would provoke their fiery ends before the next VMAs. The barbarity of Sharon's regime has put off, if only temporarily, the time of its eventual collapse. The "fundementalist" colonists in the '67-occupied territories should be grateful to their patron, but such suicidal petulance as this is common with the sort (this found in most societies of the planet).

It took me a while to arrive at this bizarre, paradoxical stance.

[hansolsen]

104. Organized religion is at once the greatest good and the greatest evil

ever set loose on this planet. I know how I would characterize this action by this Rabbi. Do you?