Pro-Palestinian supporters at Columbia University confront Jews ‘to push them out of camp’

[A2SG]

If a foreign entity laid claim to a parcel of land in the heartland of the United States, removed the people from that land, took their homes and farms that had been in their families for generations, and restricted their freedom and basic rights if they tried to re-enter that land, how would you expect the people that were removed from that land to react?

Red Dawn 2: 'Murica Risin'

-- A2SG, coming soon to a multiplex near you....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Maybe you can tell me why it is a fairy tale.

OK, here's one example. Do you remember pictures of Gaza when reporters were there and they walked down the streets filming? Remember when their camera's came across, what we commonly refer to as Bodegas with their shelves fully stocked with food? Where did that food come from? How did it get on the shelves of those bodegas? Because Hamas steals much of the aid food and re-sells it to the residents to support their criminal activities. Will the left admit that?.....Nope. They just claim that Israel is preventing food aid shipments therefore making their claims "true". And you guys just swallow the propaganda without question.

 

[BCP1928]

OK, here's one example. Do you remember pictures of Gaza when reporters were there and they walked down the streets filming? Remember when their camera's came across, what we commonly refer to as Bodegas with their shelves fully stocked with food? Where did that food come from? How did it get on the shelves of those bodegas? Because Hamas steals much of the aid food and re-sells it to the residents to support their criminal activities. Will the left admit that?.....Nope. They just claim that Israel is preventing food aid shipments therefore making their claims "true". And you guys just swallow the propaganda without question.

How do you know I swallowed the "propaganda?" Did HAMAS steal food aid? I don't know, but it certainly is possible. HAMAS and other Palestinian groups have done some pretty terrible things. But that doesn't answer my question.

 

[essentialsaltes]

From history.

The UN partitioned Palestine

No, they didn't. The plan was not adopted or implemented.

and By 1948 Israel had secured the area against the attacks of the Arabs.

'Securing the area' means shooting people, terrorist bomb attacks and driving people off their land. This is no different from what the Arabs were doing.

 

[rjs330]

They hated the British mandate because the British were Jews? Jews fought the British Mandate as well (or are we not supposed to know that?)

So what if Jews fought mandate. This conversation isn't about the Arabs and Jews being upset with the mandate. The Arabs upset because rhe British wanted to give rhe Jews a state and the Jews were upset at the British because the British wasn't doing anything to follow through.

This was about the Arabs hating the Jews. The Arabs fought the British and also attacked the Jews.

See, I've lived and travelled in Muslim countries over the years, always with my wife who is openly Jewish--and as recently as six months ago in Tunisa. We talked with both Muslims and Jews in those places about it--as well as doing our own reading. What have you got?

I have history. The written history on the subject not word of mouth from Muslim countries. Who knows what they have been taught.

There was the Balfour Declaration and then the British mandate. There also was a UN resolution. In all of this the Arabs rejected it all which also offered them their own state. They said no. And they attacked the Jews.

Israel accepted the resolution and were immediately attacked. Good grief how can you not know this?

 

[rjs330]

If a foreign entity laid claim to a parcel of land in the heartland of the United States, removed the people from that land, took their homes and farms that had been in their families for generations, and restricted their freedom and basic rights if they tried to re-enter that land, how would you expect the people that were removed from that land to react?

The land belonged to the Ottoman Empire. Then it belonged to the British. THERE WAS NO NATION THERE. The UN partitioned the land and gave everyone there two Nations. The Jews accepted. The Arabs didn't want any Jews ther and were fighting them even during the time of the Balfore Declaration and beyond. Israel had every right to govern their nation. The Jews were EXPELLED from all the Arab lands. But I dont here you whining about that. Israel didn't attack all those Arab countries and try to invade them. Israel hasn't been launching attacks against all those countries every since then.

I dont here you claiming Israel has some right to attack all the Arab countries tries over their expulsion and removal of their property. You would be outraged at Israel if Israel was launching attacks over the last 70 years at the Arab countries for expelling them and taking their property. Yet you will defend Arabs.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

So what if Jews fought mandate. This conversation isn't about the Arabs and Jews being upset with the mandate. The Arabs upset because rhe British wanted to give rhe Jews a state and the Jews were upset at the British because the British wasn't doing anything to follow through.

This was about the Arabs hating the Jews. The Arabs fought the British and also attacked the Jews.

Were they upset because the British wanted to give the Jews a state? Or were they upset because the British wanted to take their land and give it to the Jews as a state? Evidence suggests the latter rather than the former, which had far more to do with issues of property ownership, concerns about migration and the economy, and self-determination than antisemitism.

The Arab Case for Palestine, The Arab Office | CIE

From the beginning of the Palestine Mandate in 1920, Arabs in Palestine opposed Zionism; Arab states and leaders joined the opposition to Zionism in the 1930s. After WWII, Arab states were vehement in their opposition to Zionism, though the merits of their arguments were genuine, Arab leaders...

israeled.org

 

[rjs330]

No, they didn't. The plan was not adopted or implemented.

The UN voted for it. Israel accepted it. The Arabs rejected it. Israel took what they were offered. The fact that the Arabs didn't is on them. Palestine could have its own nation and they rejected it.

Securing the area' means shooting people, terrorist bomb attacks and driving people off their land. This is no different from what the Arabs were doing.

Israel needed to secure their borders as a nation becauae the Arabs has been threatened them and fighting them. And THE DAY AFTER Israel declared their Independance the ARABS attacked them. This was BEFORE Israel did anything to the Arabs there. Due to the war Arabs left or were driven out. Which makes perfect sense since the Arabs were the aggressors.

Israel offered in 1948 for Arabs to remain. 160,000 Arabs stayed and kept their homes and land. Others became refugees after being promised by the other Arabs of their right to return after they drove the Jews out. However, the Arabs LOST and those that left did not fet their right to return. A choice the ARABS made in hopes rhe Jews would be driven out.

If the Arabs would have left them alone to set up their country this would have gone much smoother. But they didn't. If they would have just concentrated on setting up their own country they would have been much better off. Instead they forcibly removed all the Jews from the Arab nations where Jews lost their homes and property. Yet I dont hear you or any others whining about that.

 

[rjs330]

Were they upset because the British wanted to give the Jews a state? Or were they upset because the British wanted to take their land and give it to the Jews as a state?

Ive already addressed this and who owned the land. And the Jews offered the Arabs to stay after they declared their independence. 160,000 stayed and kept their property.

The denial that so many of the Arabs in the region were anti-semetic is astounding.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The UN voted for it.

It was never implemented.

Israel accepted it.

Israel didn't exist; it couldn't accept anything. Some Jews living in Palestine favored it; others did not. Notably Irgun and other Zionist terrorist organizations.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Ive already addressed this and who owned the land.

You didn't though - saying "Oh, the British were in charge, so they could do what they wanted with the land" doesn't address the historical claims that the existing residents had. While the British may have had the authority to do what they did, that does not mean that the Arab (and Jewish, and Christian) residents of Palestine were necessarily going to be okay with it.

The denial that so many of the Arabs in the region were anti-semetic is astounding.

Where have I denied that? I just reject your assertion that it was the sole (or even the primary) motivation for Arab opposition to the creation of an Israeli state.

Funnily enough, I see a lot of parallels between this and the current migrant crisis in the US. No one is trying to create a Central/South American ethnostate within the US, but a lot of the arguments from the right against mass migration sound a lot like the arguments of the residents of Palestine against mass migration of Jews from Europe to their territory. And while some people voicing their displeasure at migrants are racist, I don't think that racism is the primary motivation for the movement as a whole. I think you'd agree with that, right?

 

[FireDragon76]

There is even a loyal Israeli political opposition to Zionism.

Yes... there are Israelis that believe "a Jewish homeland" doesn't have to be interpreted as "a homeland only for Jews".

 

[BCP1928]

Ive already addressed this and who owned the land. And the Jews offered the Arabs to stay after they declared their independence. 160,000 stayed and kept their property.

The denial that so many of the Arabs in the region were anti-semetic is astounding.

Sure they were. But "so many?" How then had Jews and Muslims managed to live together in Palestine for so many centuries? Why did tens of thousands of Jews flee there when the Christians invaded Al Andalus?

 

[BCP1928]

Yes... there are Israelis that believe "a Jewish homeland" doesn't have to be interpreted as "a homeland only for Jews".

I think what we are seeing here is a manifestation of Christian Zionism. Christian Zionists must have this become a religious war, not just a war between settlers and indigenous people. That is why the Palestinians cannot be seen to have any motive other than antisemitism.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think what we are seeing here is a manifestation of Christian Zionism. Christian Zionists must have this become a religious war, not just a war between settlers and indigenous people. That is why the Palestinians cannot be seen to have any motive other than antisemitism.

Quite a few Israelis can trace their ancestry back to the ancient times of Post-Soviet Russia, when only a Jewish father and an orthodox conversion was all that was necessary to get a flight to a nice beachside condo near Tel Aviv, all expenses paid. Whereas many Palestinians are more or less identical to the Canaanites that lived there for thousands of years.

If Jesus was walking around today in the US, he'ld be arrested and deported by ICE because he was a little too olive in complexion for his own good and he made some guy in a red had nervous.

 

[BCP1928]

So what if Jews fought mandate. This conversation isn't about the Arabs and Jews being upset with the mandate. The Arabs upset because rhe British wanted to give rhe Jews a state and the Jews were upset at the British because the British wasn't doing anything to follow through.

This was about the Arabs hating the Jews. The Arabs fought the British and also attacked the Jews.

I have history. The written history on the subject not word of mouth from Muslim countries. Who knows what they have been taught.

And the Jews who live side by side with them? I guess you wouldn't believe them either. The trouble is, you haven't told us what that written history is.

There was the Balfour Declaration and then the British mandate. There also was a UN resolution. In all of this the Arabs rejected it all which also offered them their own state. They said no. And they attacked the Jews.

Rejected? How rude of them to reject a generous offer from foreigners who had the power--not the right--to dispose of their lives.

Israel accepted the resolution and were immediately attacked. Good grief how can you not know this?

Jews accepted the resoution--there was no Israel yet, just a bunch of nationalists on either side--and conflict began. What I don't know is why I should believe that the reaction of the Palestians was entirely motivated by antisemitism.

 

[FireDragon76]

You didn't though - saying "Oh, the British were in charge, so they could do what they wanted with the land" doesn't address the historical claims that the existing residents had. While the British may have had the authority to do what they did, that does not mean that the Arab (and Jewish, and Christian) residents of Palestine were necessarily going to be okay with it.

Where have I denied that? I just reject your assertion that it was the sole (or even the primary) motivation for Arab opposition to the creation of an Israeli state.

Funnily enough, I see a lot of parallels between this and the current migrant crisis in the US. No one is trying to create a Central/South American ethnostate within the US, but a lot of the arguments from the right against mass migration sound a lot like the arguments of the residents of Palestine against mass migration of Jews from Europe to their territory. And while some people voicing their displeasure at migrants are racist, I don't think that racism is the primary motivation for the movement as a whole. I think you'd agree with that, right?

This isn't just about Muslims, either. There have always been alot of Christians in Palestine, going back to ancient times.

Yitzhak Rabin was right... religion should be kept out Israeli politics. The Bible is not a modern geography textbook. Israel was created after the horrors of WWII, when almost no countries came to the aid of Jews, including the United States. It wasn't a license for a genocidal holy war to recreate a religious mythology.

 

[rjs330]

Israel didn't exist; it couldn't accept anything.

Well apparently somebody did because they decided to do do it. Whatever the Jewish delegation was they agreed.

It was never implemented.

Sure it was. It was voted for by rhe UN and the Jews moved forward with it. De

 

[rjs330]

but a lot of the arguments from the right against mass migration sound a lot like the arguments of the residents of Palestine against mass migration of Jews from Europe to their territory.

The Palestinians didnt own all rhe land. It wasnt their land. They had no nation or territory. It doesn't apply to the US illegal immigration even remotely.

You didn't though - saying "Oh, the British were in charge, so they could do what they wanted with the land" doesn't address the historical claims that the existing residents had. While the British may have had the authority to do what they did, that does not mean that the Arab (and Jewish, and Christian) residents of Palestine were necessarily going to be okay with it.

Yeah I did. The majority of the land was owned by the Brits. When Israel declared their independence they offered for the Arabs to stay and keep their properties. The fact that they decided to rely on the rest if the Arabs to remove the Jews by attacking them is on the Arabs. Those that stayed kept their properties.

 

[JosephZ]

The majority of the land was owned by the Brits.

The British never owned any of the land that made up Palestine.