Originally Posted by benaakatz

im sorry but the vast majority of the jewsish people is a NATION. we lived in the land for over a thousand years (archaelogically proven) until we were forcibly expelled. we still mainained a presence in israel throughout history and have always longed to return there.

there was NO palestinian state there. there was no country there. as far as im concerned we jews have a great claim to this land...its our home. let there be 2 states for 2 peoples, but do not try to claim that us jews have no right to our homeland.

by the way, before israel was ever established, the arabs attacked jews living in british palestine in massive pogroms. why? there was no israel...for what reason did they attack us? the palestinian leader at the time of the holocaust supported hitler and aided him in killing many jews. manay many arabs went along with this.

and when there was a partition, the arabs said no and went to war to exterminate the jews from the land. thats history. a great number of palestinians fled, some were encouraged to by theie leaders/fellow arabs, some feld to escape battle, and some were forced out (but that was only a minority). my point is that if the arabs accepted the 2 state solution back in 48, which would have given them a much bigger palestine, there would be no mess that we have today.

but do NOT try to claim that us jews have no claim to this land...that is bordering on prejudice and ignorance, and perhaps hate.

I think the creation of the state of Isreal as of 1967 is not really in dispute. What is in dispute is Israel's continual illegal expansion deeper into the West Bank which is nothing more than downright theft. The continual land grabs are not recognized by anyone -not even the USA or even many of the citizens of Israel.

And frankly nobody is interested about who was there first. If we did then everybody in the USA would have to leave and give the country back to the native Americans. The statute of limitations is expired when it comes to who was there originally. All we can do is focus on the present.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

And frankly nobody is interested about who was there first. If we did then everybody in the USA would have to leave and give the country back to the native Americans. The statute of limitations is expired when it comes to who was there originally. All we can do is focus on the present.

The question of "ownership" has arisen, and like the illegal land grabs, it is all part and parcel of the problem.

When this poppycock is given as a causal reason for the present problems, .. clearly, ownership must be disproved, and it's not hard to do. Also I think you'll find that The Statute Of Limitations only applies to civil Misdemeanors (US) and Summary Offences, Felonies are not covered as are Capital crimes. (Common Law).

Originally Posted by senojekips

The question of "ownership" has arisen, and like the illegal land grabs, it is all part and parcel of the problem.

When this poppycock is given as a causal reason for the present problems, .. clearly, ownership must be disproved, and it's not hard to do. Also I think you'll find that The Statute Of Limitations only applies to civil Misdemeanors (US) and Summary Offences, Felonies are not covered as are Capital crimes. (Common Law).

Actually most felonies with the exculsion of homicide and rape are also covered under the statutes of limitations in the US.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

Actually most felonies with the exculsion of homicide and rape are also covered under the statutes of limitations in the US.

Thank you 03USMC, I stand corrected.

In British (and Australian) law there is no such thing, however I believe that it is regarded as a "dead case" after 99 years, but this only applies to criminal law, Civil cases are exempt from the Act.

Originally Posted by senojekips

.

About 40 of "my" relatives did go to the gas chambers/shot/starved/beaten to death, or whatever.

Firstly, what does this ambiguity mean? "my" ? Is it my or not?

Other matters later.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Firstly, what does this ambiguity mean? "my" ? Is it my or not?

Other matters later.

Mine as in belonging to me personally. Not as in, of my religion, or my ethnicity or whatever some persons like to misconstrue as they usually do when their argument is without any merit whatsoever and they wish to avoid the point.

So why the "My" which suggests ambiguity, as opposed to named family recorded in detail in Auschwitz etc. records, and retribution acknowledged. Sorry to be pushy, but this is a sensitive subject and you used the "my". Just for the record in future discussions, so that we know where we stand.


***
And now back to the thread :-

Jewish exodus from Arab lands refers to the 20th century expulsion or mass departure of Jews, primarily of Sephardi and Mizrahi background, from Arab and Islamic countries. The migration started in the late 19th century, but accelerated after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War .



800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were either forced out or fled their homes in Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s; 260,000 reached Israel in 1948-1951, 600,000 by 1972. The Jews of Egypt and Libya were expelled while those of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa left as a result of a coordinated effort among Arab governments to create physical and political insecurity. Most were forced to abandon their property. By 2002 these Jews and their descendants constituted about 40% of Israel's population .

One of the main representative bodies of this group, the World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries ,estimates that Jewish property abandoned in Arab countries would be valued today at more than $300 billion and Jewish-owned real-estate left behind in Arab lands at 100,000 square kilometers (four times the size of the State of Israel). The organization asserts that the Jewish exodus was the result of a deliberate policy decision taken by the Arab League.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

So why the "My" which suggests ambiguity, as opposed to named family recorded in detail in Auschwitiz etc. records, and retribution acknowledged. Sorry to be pushy, but this is a sensitive subject and you used the "my". just for the record in future discussions, so that we know where we stand.

Well, while we are clearing up these matters, firstly, there is no "Record" and also you do not tell me where I stand in regard to anything, nor am I interested in where my writings might stand in your judgement. So you can get that right out of your head to start with.

Sorry DB, but with me, you have just two options,... You can take it,... or you can leave it. I've never really been noted for doing the bidding of others or conforming to their imposed views. For the moment, just count yourself lucky that I gave you the civility of an answer at all. It won't necessarily always be that way.

No one else needed to ask, I think you were perhaps trying on the old "top dog" act, (No,... there's no ambiguity intended here regarding the quotes around the term "top dog" either, rather more "specificity" as in my previous post).

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Jewish exodus from Arab lands refers to the 20th century expulsion or mass departure of Jews, primarily of Sephardi and Mizrahi background, from Arab and Islamic countries. The migration started in the late 19th century, but accelerated after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War .

Where may I ask was this "Jewish Exodus from Arab lands" (This is a "Quote", and does NOT in this case denote Ambiguity) mentioned in this thread, and even if it was, what has it to do with any specific post in this thread other than you attempting to deploy a "red herring" (Specificity NOT ambiguity)

In all my posts hereafter, I will NOT be explaining every individual meaning of any words or punctuation for your benefit Del Boy. No one else seems to have any difficulty in understanding them and you will have to learn to do the same. In the colloquial English language, words and indeed the interpretation of phrases and the use of punctuation varies in relation to the circumstances in which they are used. Yep, it's difficult, but given some thought, I think even you can manage it.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

So why the "My" which suggests ambiguity, as opposed to named family recorded in detail in Auschwitz etc. records, and retribution acknowledged. Sorry to be pushy, but this is a sensitive subject and you used the "my". Just for the record in future discussions, so that we know where we stand.


***
And now back to the thread :-

Jewish exodus from Arab lands refers to the 20th century expulsion or mass departure of Jews, primarily of Sephardi and Mizrahi background, from Arab and Islamic countries. The migration started in the late 19th century, but accelerated after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War .



800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews were either forced out or fled their homes in Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s; 260,000 reached Israel in 1948-1951, 600,000 by 1972. The Jews of Egypt and Libya were expelled while those of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa left as a result of a coordinated effort among Arab governments to create physical and political insecurity. Most were forced to abandon their property. By 2002 these Jews and their descendants constituted about 40% of Israel's population .

One of the main representative bodies of this group, the World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries ,estimates that Jewish property abandoned in Arab countries would be valued today at more than $300 billion and Jewish-owned real-estate left behind in Arab lands at 100,000 square kilometers (four times the size of the State of Israel). The organization asserts that the Jewish exodus was the result of a deliberate policy decision taken by the Arab League.

I must say that i understand fully the expulsions of Jews from Arab countries.

In fact i would do the same, its not only not morally wrong, its a reasonable precaution.

Jews came to Palestine and using legal ambiguity left in the area by Turks and later Brits took over the local population which live there for the better part of the millenium.

The local population didnt like the influx of Jewish immigrants who made it all to clear that they want to make a country on the Palestinian backyard so they fought and instead of being seen as freedom fighters they ended up being terrorists who resorted to desperate tactics in their own homeland.

Now other Arab coutries seeing what Jews plan for the region feared having Jewish populations as they could provide a whole lots of excuses to Israel in the future so they expelled them, its fully understandable.

As for why Palestinians dont have a state? They dont want scraps, they lived in what is now Israel, it was their home untill Jews expelled/murdered/stole their lands, the world is stupidly amazed that rightfull owners refuse to keep only the smaller half of their home and dont peacefully bend over to Jewish occupation of their former home.


Also one more thing.

Palestinians initially did not aim for their own state, the talk of Palestinian statehood was purely as defence against Jewish colonialism, too little too late. There is no great push to statehood, Palestinians despite being a "people" and a nation did not aim for statehood while Jews came already determined to murder or kick out the locals and build a country there.

Since I'm from germany this could be a minefield for me, but I'll try it anyway.

I'm a little confused. They could of had one in 1947 with the partition but they rejected it. They could of had one in 2000, but arafat rejected it. And reportedly, abbas rejected olmert's offer which was basically all of the west bank (with some territorial swaps), half of jerusalem, and even letting some palestinians settle back in israel.

In 1947/48 the palestinians "had" (is was still a british protectorate) ALL the country. Lets say you are living in a house for ages. Now The company doing the administration says: well, it's actually yours and we hadn't any right to own it, its yours, but there is someone else who claims one half of it, you need to share. Would you happyly agree?
beside that there have some neighbours around who didn't want any newcomer in their "village" at all.

And what about between 48 and 67? The Egyptians controlled the gaza strip and the Jordanians controlled the West bank. Why didn't they establish for the palestinians a state then? why was there no cry for a palestinian state then?

So, lets say, I'm here in germany, and lets say the, hm, sorry guys, no offense, the americans think it would be a good idea to give the native their own state, say in Belgium. You think germany, The Netherlands and France will just give up parts of their country to make room for the belgians?

just imagine if the kurds were offered a state....they'd take it in a heartbeat and be overjoyed that the international community finally gave a damn about them

The Kurds want what they count as their state, wich is divided between a few countries. They dont want a state in, lets say, Arizona.

There are some other issues you oveerlooked.E.g. Water. Right now Israel owns nearly any sources in that area. You may look up what they use by themself and what they generously grant to their neighbours. They will Egypt, syria and a few other countries as well.
Then there is the point of expanding israel settlements, The point that just "offering" half of jerusalem is quite nice, but something a israelian PM hardly can innforce, because the orthodox Partys there see that a bit different and have quite some impact.
You see, its not as black and white as it looks at first.