• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Why do Arabs oppose Zionism?

tsedek

tsedek

Active Member
When were they attacked for it?

You think the Palestinians couldn't have kicked out every single Jew in Palestine and take their land if they wanted to?

You really need to study the history of "your" people. Go read about the Jews who lived in Palestine before the zionist arrived.
1929-1936-1939......... the remains of the trucks that were destroyed are still laying on the side of the road from tel-aviv to jerusalem...
 
  • Advertisement
  • Shangleesh

    Shangleesh

    New Member
    1929-1936-1939......... the remains of the trucks that were destroyed are still laying on the side of the road from tel-aviv to jerusalem...
    You really take things out of context and do not understand the history.

    All these attacks occurred because of the Balfour Declaration and the British interference in Palestine and allowing Jews to enter Palestine and build a state for them there. The British were really responsible for this hatred of each other.

    I am not justifying these attacks, in my personal opinion they were counterproductive because it only allowed the Zionist to brainwash other Jews.

    You have to understand the Palestinian mind at the time, they were seeking independence and they see a foriegn european people entering their country and the Balfour Declaration was exposed already.

    The Jewish community in Palestine was a flourished one and a very successful one that lived in Peace until the Sykes-Picot divided this land and the Balfour declaration was agreed upon and European colonialist entered and caused many divisions and problems for their own interests.

    All the massacres of Jews in Palestine occurred pretty recently considering the Jewish history in Palestine. Why weren't there any massacres before the British started interfering in our affairs?
     
    3asheq Beirut

    3asheq Beirut

    Active Member
    This argument that there was no independent state called Palestine and that therefore the Jews had a right to go there and create their own state on the indigenous people's land is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You seem to forget that Palestine, as well as the rest of Syria, were under Ottoman Rule and then were taken over by British and French colonialists. The people were not given the opportunity to create a state of their own. And then these same colonialists imported a foreign group of people that lived in their own European continent and implanted them in Palestine, to which they had absolutely no link.

    Lithuania, for example, used to be under Soviet rule, and there was no independent Lithuanian state. Would that then justify a group of people migrating to Lithuania and declaring a state of their own there just after the breakup of the Soviet Union and before the Lithuanians could declare their own state?

    European Jews had absolutely no right to implant themselves in a land where other people lived and declare this land as exclusively theirs.
     
    Mighty Goat

    Mighty Goat

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Well you should be defending the oppressed and occupied and that is the Palestinian people and nation. What do you mean that arguments that speak of indigenous people do not hold weight, what are you talking about, please explain to me why it doesn't hold weight? Are you trying to say the Palestinians are not indigenous to this land?
    What I mean is that the Palestinians de facto inhabit the territories over which they reside today. To argue that they have a right to a state by claiming ancient rights is problamatic, since who cares who were the ancient people inhabiting this land? In fact and in reality and in todays actuality these people the Palestinians do inhabit this territory and from within this context they should have a right to a state.

    The Zionists conversely are the ones who are reverting to biblical and ancient rights to claim a modern right to a state. Why are the Palestinians who are de facto inhabiting Palestine wasting their time trying to argue a similar argument as the Zionists by claiming religious and ancient rights to a state over Palestine, when in fact the Palestinians are residing over these territories?

    In other words, the Palestinians do not need to prove that they have a right by appealing to a historic narrative. The Palestinians are a living reality.

    Then the question is why are the Isalmists and the Arabists adopting the same logic of religious right claims that the Zionists argue and adopt, when in fact and regardless to whether Umar conquered Jerusalem or not, the Palestinians are actually living over these territories.

    I hope I am clear.
     
    tsedek

    tsedek

    Active Member
    You really take things out of context and do not understand the history.

    All these attacks occurred because of the Balfour Declaration and the British interference in Palestine and allowing Jews to enter Palestine and build a state for them there. The British were really responsible for this hatred of each other.

    I am not justifying these attacks, in my personal opinion they were counterproductive because it only allowed the Zionist to brainwash other Jews.

    You have to understand the Palestinian mind at the time, they were seeking independence and they see a foriegn european people entering their country and the Balfour Declaration was exposed already.

    The Jewish community in Palestine was a flourished one and a very successful one that lived in Peace until the Sykes-Picot divided this land and the Balfour declaration was agreed upon and European colonialist entered and caused many divisions and problems for their own interests.

    All the massacres of Jews in Palestine occurred pretty recently considering the Jewish history in Palestine. Why weren't there any massacres before the British started interfering in our affairs?



    Please allow me to ask you something and very politely request a real honest answer.

    do you honestly think that if there wouldn't have been (then, talk about, and afterwards the formation of) a jewish state - this area (israel, west-bank and gaza) would be an independent Palestinian state now?
     
    Shangleesh

    Shangleesh

    New Member
    Please allow me to ask you something and very politely request a real honest answer.

    do you honestly think that if there wouldn't have been (then, talk about, and afterwards the formation of) a jewish state - this area (israel, west-bank and gaza) would be an independent Palestinian state now?
    To be honest i cannot say 100% that i am sure it would have been an independent Palestinian state but i think you are still missing the point.

    It is irrelevant if there would be an independent Palestinian state now or not, the point is my land is my land whether i am part of the Palestinian state, Syrian state, Jordanian state, Egyptian state or no state. This is still my land and you as a foreigner have no right to claim it. I hope you understand that.

    You cannot use that against the Palestinian or any other Native people because the same could be applied to almost every nation in the world. States and Nations are a pretty recent construct in human history and indpendent states from Latin America, Asia and Africa are even newer.

    Not every nation that became independent in Latin America, Asia and Africa were able to predict their independence, some fought for it, some fought for unity with other countries, some fought with other countries against the same colonizer.

    So was i able to go to any of these new countries before they were independent or before they knew they would be independent and build my state on their land and say hey do you honestly think you were going to defeat the French, the Spanish, the British or whoever and have an independent state.

    I understand your position, you are an Israeli, you live there, even if the whole truth is presented to you and even if you admit it, you are still an Israeli who will stand with his state no matter what because you are in the situation and you fear our independence and our seeking of true justice (not 1967 border justice).

    I hope you understand where we are coming from. This is our destiny, whatever the historical facts are will not change the Israeli position and we will be in a state of conflict because the zionist are not going to give up what they stole even if all the facts and truths are presented and even if the zionist admit they are truths and facts.

    I think if the British and French didn't control the area and divide the lands, Palestine could have been part of an independent Syrian state, however since they did divide the lands and the Palestinians were fighting for independence i believe that there would have been an independent Palestinian state but i cannot say anything is for sure.
     
    VitaminC

    VitaminC

    Active Member
    tsedek would you entertain commenting on my post (quote) on page 4?
     
    tsedek

    tsedek

    Active Member
    To be honest i cannot say 100% that i am sure it would have been an independent Palestinian state but i think you are still missing the point.

    It is irrelevant if there would be an independent Palestinian state now or not, the point is my land is my land whether i am part of the Palestinian state, Syrian state, Jordanian state, Egyptian state or no state. This is still my land and you as a foreigner have no right to claim it. I hope you understand that.

    You cannot use that against the Palestinian or any other Native people because the same could be applied to almost every nation in the world. States and Nations are a pretty recent construct in human history and indpendent states from Latin America, Asia and Africa are even newer.

    Not every nation that became independent in Latin America, Asia and Africa were able to predict their independence, some fought for it, some fought for unity with other countries, some fought with other countries against the same colonizer.

    So was i able to go to any of these new countries before they were independent or before they knew they would be independent and build my state on their land and say hey do you honestly think you were going to defeat the French, the Spanish, the British or whoever and have an independent state.

    I understand your position, you are an Israeli, you live there, even if the whole truth is presented to you and even if you admit it, you are still an Israeli who will stand with his state no matter what because you are in the situation and you fear our independence and our seeking of true justice (not 1967 border justice).

    I hope you understand where we are coming from. This is our destiny, whatever the historical facts are will not change the Israeli position and we will be in a state of conflict because the zionist are not going to give up what they stole even if all the facts and truths are presented and even if the zionist admit they are truths and facts.

    I think if the British and French didn't control the area and divide the lands, Palestine could have been part of an independent Syrian state, however since they did divide the lands and the Palestinians were fighting for independence i believe that there would have been an independent Palestinian state but i cannot say anything is for sure.
    1. everything is fine, except for israeli state... (your land in an israeli state).
    you don't think that's very discriminative?

    2. so, just suppose the people owning land here would have done absolutely nothing against the jews buying land that wasn't owned. who would have 'claimed' their land then? what excuse would the jews put up to claim the land people already owned?

    3. That's exactly what's happened to sudan.... all bedouins that arrived at the country are now sudanese as well, just like the indigenous sudanese. Why could that happen there and not here?

    4. I'm not afraid of anything. I'm God-fearing (but mostly God-trusting) so what you say is not applicable to me. I believe in an Israeli state because I believe in a land where EVERY people feel safe from danger because of their ethnicy/religion/or whatever people select to discriminate other people.

    5. And, you never, ever doubt that maybe you don't have the whole 'story' with all of its facets? 100% sure that what you think and believe that happened is 'it'? I admire you and at the same time cannot believe you. Not one 'side' in this conflict holds 'the' truth. Sorry.

    Sorry about the childish way of quoting, but I thought it would be easier reference if I add the respective color to each fragment I react to :blushing:
     
    tsedek

    tsedek

    Active Member
    tsedek would you entertain commenting on my post (quote) on page 4?
    ¨I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been
    anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out... I'll be seventy years old soon... if you asked me whether I shall die and be buried in a Jewish State I would tell you Yes; in ten years, fifteen years, I believe there will still be a Jewish State. But ask me whether my son Amos, who will be fifty at the end of this year, has a chance of dying and being buried in a Jewish State, and I would answer: fifty-fifty¨


    David Ben-Gurion (Polish born Israeli Statesman and Prime Minister (1948-53, 1955-63). Chief architect of the state of Israel and revered as Father of the Nation, 1886-1973)


    I don't see what I can comment on that? He was just another man, like there are millions of men on the planet. He had his thoughts and coincidently he was a leader, but I don't believe in leaders - nor do I believe leaders have any credit over events, I believe in people. Those are the ones creating the future (while leaders brag about the past)
     
    Shangleesh

    Shangleesh

    New Member
    tsedek you seem to miss a very important point that cannot be excluded when we are discussing Israel.

    The zionist were coming from outside of Palestine to build a state on this land.

    If Palestine was under the Syrian state or Egyptian state it doesn't mean Syria or Egypt has a right to kick out the Palestinians and settle other people on their land even if the other people are Arabs.
     
    VitaminC

    VitaminC

    Active Member
    I don't see what I can comment on that? He was just another man, like there are millions of men on the planet. He had his thoughts and coincidently he was a leader, but I don't believe in leaders - nor do I believe leaders have any credit over events, I believe in people. Those are the ones creating the future (while leaders brag about the past)
    just another man? wow
    am not that naive but ok!
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    This argument that there was no independent state called Palestine and that therefore the Jews had a right to go there and create their own state on the indigenous people's land is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
    Replace "Palestine" with "Israel" and "Jews" with "Arabs" and try reading your comment again. See what happens.

    Lithuania, for example, used to be under Soviet rule, and there was no independent Lithuanian state. Would that then justify a group of people migrating to Lithuania and declaring a state of their own there just after the breakup of the Soviet Union and before the Lithuanians could declare their own state?
    Why many people so ego to offer poor examples and irrelevant comparisons? Please, review the commonalities. How many did you get?

    The people [Arabs of Palestine] were not given the opportunity to create a state of their own.
    1948 anyone?

    And then these same colonialists imported a foreign group of people that lived in their own European continent and implanted them in Palestine, to which they had absolutely no link.

    European Jews had absolutely no right to implant themselves in a land where other people lived and declare this land as exclusively theirs.
    It is called coming back home.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    tsedek would you entertain commenting on my post (quote) on page 4?
    I am not tsedek so if you believe I should not interfere, please ignore my comment.



    In the end there is no fair or unfair there is only can or cannot.

    It does not matter to Israelis that you believe they have no right to return.

    It does not matter to you that Israelis believe they have right to come back home.

    What matter is that fight will go on for a bit more.

    Israelis get stronger, Palestinians get weaker. I guess we can predict even now what result will be eventually. We just do not know when.
     
    tsedek

    tsedek

    Active Member
    just another man? wow
    am not that naive but ok!
    I noticed this very much in Lebanese forums. You (generalizing) put very much importance to leaders - But 'here' 'we' don't do that. A leader is just another person and he can do good and he can do wrong and make mistakes and for those he will be judged. Not for who he is but for what he does.
     
    VitaminC

    VitaminC

    Active Member
    I noticed this very much in Lebanese forums. You (generalizing) put very much importance to leaders - But 'here' 'we' don't do that. A leader is just another person and he can do good and he can do wrong and make mistakes and for those he will be judged. Not for who he is but for what he does.
    and you shouldn't generalize... because your opinion doesn't represent the majority of israelis... who worship adore and long for "historic" leaders... and complain of lack of good leadership these days.

    of course leaders are not gods... which is why you should re-update your strategies because they are not fair.. and guess what they didn't and won't work for you. try something new... less arrogant and less bulliyish.
    would you like me to give you a list of articles written by "historic israeli leaders" and jewish/israeli think tanks outlining/defining the whole US/Israeli strategy in the middle east?
    are they just insignificant writers too?
    and if so.. why do your successive leaderships so adamantly follow their strategies/plans?

    and last but not least... something i never understood.. is why israel rejects the arab peace initiative.
     
    tsedek

    tsedek

    Active Member
    and you shouldn't generalize... because your opinion doesn't represent the majority of israelis... who worship adore and long for "historic" leaders... and complain of lack of good leadership these days.

    of course leaders are not gods... which is why you should re-update your strategies because they are not fair.. and guess what they didn't and won't work for you. try something new... less arrogant and less bulliyish.
    would you like me to give you a list of articles written by "historic israeli leaders" and jewish/israeli think tanks outlining/defining the whole US/Israeli strategy in the middle east?
    are they just insignificant writers too?
    and if so.. why do your successive leaderships so adamantly follow their strategies/plans?

    and last but not least... something i never understood.. is why israel rejects the arab peace initiative.


    Well, as it happens to be my opinion DOES represent the majority of Israeli's. Else I wouldn't have written 'we' (a word, you can check) I seldom use.

    No, you don't have to come with the standard list of 'quotations from israeli leaders' that circles the internet for one purpose and one sole purpose only: propaganda to mislead. Any truthfinder would first of all look whether they were said at all and in which context. But since you refuse to accept the truth that leaders as persons aren't seen as heroes here in Israel, you basic foundation for judging is wrong anyway.

    You mix 'complain of lack of good leadership' to misinterpret the meaning. Leadership points at actions, a leader takes - that defines good leadership, not the leader himself. There is too much hunger for reality here to start to admire people made of flesh and blood.

    I'm sorry you perceive the language as arrogant. I have heard this a lot more from others. But you must realize that different mentalities can end up in having a different perspective of common descriptions of attitudes (for example) and this style of language is not seen as arrogant over here, but simply direct and blunt (as in opposite of 'diplomatic' and 'sneaky'), and thus honest puting forward.

    All writers are insignificant. Sorry, they are just people like you and me and with their own gutfeelings, interpretation, favorites, opinion etc. Not one opinion is qualitatively worth more than that of you and me.

    The leaders follow their plans due to representing the people of Israel: holding on to a homeland for jews and defending it.

    The Arab peace initiative was rejected because it sets pre-conditions on Israel and Israel is willing only to meet with Arab nations negotiating peace without having preconditions.
     
    VitaminC

    VitaminC

    Active Member
    The Arab peace initiative was rejected because it sets pre-conditions on Israel and Israel is willing only to meet with Arab nations negotiating peace without having preconditions.
    can you specify which preconditions bother israel... and why... and what would be the fair alternative?? because i believe everything put forward by the arab initiative was fair and just to both sides. and please don't say it's the right of return of palestinians because the initiative says a "just solution for the refugees"... so it left room for creative ideas and compromises that can be accepted by both.. after negociations.. which can only start by israel accepting the initiative.
     
    tsedek

    tsedek

    Active Member
    can you specify which preconditions bother israel... and why... and what would be the fair alternative?? because i believe everything put forward by the arab initiative was fair and just to both sides. and please don't say it's the right of return of palestinians because the initiative says a "just solution for the refugees"... so it left room for creative ideas and compromises that can be accepted by both.. after negociations.. which can only start by israel accepting the initiative.
    You answered the question:

    "can you specify which preconditions bother israel... and why"

    "which can only start by israel accepting the initiative..."

    the initiative is made up from a set of conditions - to start talking peace one starts without any but negotiate and address the issues. that's the only fair recipe I think.

    an agenda might look like this:
    1. palestinian refugees
    2. borders
    3. recognition
    4. security issues
    etc, etc.

    without conditions. when negotiating propositions will be put forward automatically.
     
    VitaminC

    VitaminC

    Active Member
    You answered the question:

    "can you specify which preconditions bother israel... and why"

    "which can only start by israel accepting the initiative..."

    the initiative is made up from a set of conditions - to start talking peace one starts without any but negotiate and address the issues. that's the only fair recipe I think.

    an agenda might look like this:
    1. palestinian refugees
    2. borders
    3. recognition
    4. security issues
    etc, etc.

    without conditions. when negotiating propositions will be put forward automatically.
    personally i don't think that's the reason why israel has not and will not accept the initiative.

    1- israel is not ready to share jerusalem with the palestinians (so that would be a definite no to the initiative)
    2- not ready to pick up the financial tab of compensating the refugees... the US might....but only if it means naturalizing them in surrounding countries... and this is where M14 come in

    i think israel has a moral obligation to the refugees... since they were expelled from lands where israelis live now

    again that is my own humble opinion
     
    fidelio

    fidelio

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter

    Ghandi on Palestine

    My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them. Apart from the friendships, therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for the Jews.

    But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?

    Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and in-human to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.

    The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French. If the Jews have no home but Palestine, will they relish the idea of being forced to leave the other parts of the world in which they are settled? Or do they want a double home where they can remain at will? This cry for the national home affords a colourable justification for the German expulsion of the Jews.

    I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.

    Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen race prove their title by choosing the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth. Every country is their home including Palestine not by aggre-ssion but by loving service. A Jewish friend has sent me a book called The Jewish Contribution to Civilization by Cecil Roth. It gives a record of what the Jews have done to enrich the world’s literature, art, music, drama, science, medicine, agriculture, etc. Given the will, the Jew can refuse to be treated as the outcaste of the West, to be despised or patronized. He can command the attention and respect of the world by being man, the chosen creation of God, instead of being man who is fast sinking to the brute and forsaken by God. They can add to their many contributions the surpassing contribution of non-violent action.

    SEGAON, November 20, 1938
    Harijan, 26-11-1938
     
    Top