In a message dated 5/7/03 1:02:46 PM, Dbetter writes:
<< 'm ancient history buff, especially Roman history, so I'm faniliar with the Middle East, so here's an example from my perspective, and I find it in-line with all the other references I've read. Scrolling down to the Arab Isreali conflict is a good place to start
Search ResultsÊ-ÊWorld Book OnlineÊAmericasÊEdition >>
and it shows an off the wall avoidance of basic facts.
The example you gave is a perfect illistration of manipulation and lies of omittion.
Tell me you think it is honest to simply say "Israel was declared in May 1948"
and overlook facts like 35% of the population unilaterally seized the land from the other 65%? This obviously has nothing to do with democracy. Notice it isn't pointed out? Check out the BBC site and you can at least get these stats? do you think it is fair to lie and say that the Jews were "accepting the UN partition" when we know what the Zionists did and what they said?
they ignored the UN plan and used terrorism and murder to seize well beyond the land mapped out in the UN plan. they ignored the Jerusalem part of the plan. they ethnically cleansed 300,000 people. and you act like responding after all these things is some sort of crime? you think it was wrong for the Arabs to try to fight back after this?
this is some kind of "unjust attack on Israel"?!?! "Israel" as it is suddenly called which in reality is 35%of the population making war and using terrorism on the others in Palestine. This is legitimate in your eyes?
The source you quote is manipulative:
"On May 14, 1948, the nation of Israel officially came into being. The surrounding Arab nations immediately attacked the new state, in the first of several Arab-Israeli wars. In 1967, at the end of one of the wars, Israeli troops occupied the Gaza Strip and the West BankÑterritories that are home to millions of Palestinian Arabs. "
They don't point out all the wrongs and they simply refer to Israel "coming into being"
That is like writing about OJ Simpson and simply saying that his relationship with Nicole Brown Simpson ended. (and only saying that) (very deceptive if you don't know the details)
The who thing is written manipulatively. It is written to hide the fact that it is the Jews that are the aggressors can you see that? Notice how it says "Arabs attacked" when the reality is that the Jews attacked and used terrorism to seize well beyond the UN plan, killed and used terrorism to ethnically cleanse 300,000 Arabs THEN the Arabs responded. Notice these facts are not mentioned? Notice that the next sentence doesn't say who attacked who in 1967 and gives the impression from the previous sentence that Arabs attacks when the truth is it was the Israelis?:
overlook facts like 35% of the population unilaterally seized the land from the other 65%? This obviously has nothing to do with democracy. Notice it isn't pointed out? Check out the BBC site and you can at least get these stats? do you think it is fair to lie and say that the Jews were "accepting the UN partition" when we know what the Zionists did and what they said?
they ignored the UN plan and used terrorism and murder to seize well beyond the land mapped out in the UN plan. they ignored the Jerusalem part of the plan. they ethnically cleansed 300,000 people. and you act like responding after all these things is some sort of crime?
It is the Zionists that pushed for the radical idea that the land be divided up so that a "pure" racially established state of Jews could be established. They didn't want to live as equal citizens as is expected of all religions in America. But the division was only considered temporary by them since their goal was and is to take over all of Palestine.
You may be interested to know that the Zionist Congress rejected the partition that the Peel Commission offered in 1937. Also if you look into it, the Zionists had no intention of accepting any fair partition. As Ben-Gurion himself said in 1937, "No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of Eretz Israel." (see p162 Fateful Triangle)
"In August 1937, the 20th Zionist Congress rejected the Peel Commission proposed partition plan because the area allotted to the "Jewish state" was smaller than expected. On the other hand, the concept of partitioning Palestine into two states was accepted as a launching pad for future Zionist expansions, and to secure unlimited Jewish immigrations."
You may be interested to know the background of the May 1948 unilateral declaration by 35% of the population, imposing their will on 65% of the non-Jews.
In Nov 1947 the UN made a recommendation for a three-way partition of Palestine into a Jewish State, an Arab State and a small internationally administered zone that would have included Jerusalem. This was a recommendation by the UN General Assembly and General Assembly recommendations have no force, they are only recommendations. In fact Israel is the greatest rejecter of General Assembly resolutions by the way. When the recommendation was made, war broke out between the Palestinians and the Zionists who had been planning on taking over and had amassed much more arms. By May 1948, when the Jews (35%) unilaterally declared "the state of Israel", 300,000 Palestinians had already been ethnically cleansed (forced from their homes or had fled the fighting) by the Zionists and the Zionists had stolen a region well beyond the area of the original Jewish State that was proposed by the UN. Then, after the Zionists had taken control of this much larger part of the region and hundreds of thousands of civilians had been forced out, "Israel" was attacked by its neighbors.
In 1967 the Jews attacked and took over the remaining part of Palestine with the intention of keeping it. All through the supposed "peace process" they have been illegally building on the occupied territories.
<< I think they should go back to the original UN proposed boarders >>
You seem sincere, what you propose would be viciously fought against by the Zionists. (although I think it would be more just) No one suggests what you propose, they propose less than what you proposes since they all accept the original land grab in 1948. What has been proposed is to go back to pre-1967 boarders. The fact is that nearly the entire world and most Americans agree with a plan like that but it has been rejected by the Zionists. email me if you would like more details.
<< Terrorism by Jews can't be discounted. >>
the problem is much of the terrorism goes unreported here in America. I am talking about terrorism that is clearly seen as the "classic" terrorism. The kind that is claimed against the Palestinians in general. Just recently, Jews bombed a school targeting children. (not the military by the way) and it isn't the first time Jews have targeted children with their terrorism (not that children happened to be there, these attacks have been targeted at children at the schools).
There is a pattern of violence by Jewish terrorists of targeting children specifically (and a pattern of it going unreported in America) For years, like the murder of Palestinian girl, Intissar al-Atar, in a school yard. When the Jewish terrorist got a seven-month suspended sentence the illegal "settlers" in the courtroom broke out in song and dance. p473 Fateful Triangle.
These Jewish terrorists are subsidized (living on land illegally and in violation of the Geneva Convention and are not pursued by "the law" the same way other terrorists are) and they are ON TOP of the violence, the maiming and killing of thousands, against the Palestinians. The Israeli military have been targeting children and maiming them for life. Dramatic examples of other crimes go UNREPORTED here in America.
She watched helplessly as her Mother bled to death for over an hour as Israeli Soldiers ignored her father's cries to let the ambulance through to save his dying wife. See the Israeli describe his mission as "purification"! See the video that American TV News Editors decided you shouldn't see. (at a Canadian web site)
The fact this video was even show in Israel was itself a news story in Israel. It made headlines. Here in America, news editors pretend it didn't exist.