[9mm_fan]

The division of India was one of the most disastrous decisions ever in world history, for which both impoverished and broken countries are still paying. Yet I suspect that if India and Pakistan were not divided and Pakistan fought a 50 year terrorist war TO BE divided you'd be cheering them on.

[brraverishhh]

I've used various sources takeo. From www.mideastweb.org to the J-post to Haaretz to israelinsider. Of course, you see, these are products of a free press, as opposed to any arab government media. I also use the A.P. and most of the history is well written down.

The best sources, however, come from MEMRI and other translations of ARAB newspapers, where they make what in law they call "admissions against interest."

When a person says something that favor's their position, its called into doubt because it may be self-serving. But when they admit something against their position, its more reliable because there is little incentive to lie.

The statements about the plan of phases, Oslo the trojan horse, the pre-planned intifada, the Arab plan to invade israel in 1967 which was preempted, Arabs saying that there is no such thing as Palestine...all of these are from ARAB sources, showing their lies.

Unlike you, I rely on quotes from people in power that are my enemies, not self-serving propoganda.










Originally posted by takeo
MGB, do you care to provide your sources?
Which accurate, neutral sources do you use? perhaps Daniel Pipes, the site of the idf or the Jerusalem Post???

If you don't believe any information conflicting with your own view that's your problem. The fact the i use "extreme" sites such as gush shalom is because they are the only israeli jews who care to provide information about israel's inconsistencies and crimes in a systematic and objective way (unlike Arab sources or Israeli official sources). Unlike Arab, pro-governemental or extremist sources they always refer to official publications or scientific fieldwork to sustain their publications, and measure the two parties with the same standard.
Gush Shalom is one of the few israeli organisations who have consistently fought for peace, however with the new leader of labour there appears to be new hope.

[Drugmachine]

Most of the writers are unaware of this. But that so many well-meaning people can mindlessly parrot the canard that the repatriation of refugees is an "inalienable right" is yet another proof of the efficacy of the well-known tactic of the "big lie" - that any lie, however outrageous, will eventually be believed if repeated often enough. Certainly, it would be hard to think of many lies as easily disprovable as the idea that refugees have a "right of return" to their former homes. Well, i didn't know the geneva-conventions and un-resolutions are lies... So who is holding the truth?

The history of the 20th century is one long lesson in the falsity of this claim. To cite just a few examples:

* Millions of Moslems fled India for Pakistan following the bloody riots of 1947. India not only stripped them of citizenship, but barred them, in its constitution, from ever returning. No one ever suggested that these Moslems had a "right of return." India and pakistan aren't exactly examples to the world, and the Indian actions, if it is true what the autor writes, are indeed a great crime. i will search some facts on the net...



* After World War II, Czechoslovakia expelled all its German citizens. Yet no one suggested that the millions of Sudeten Germans had a "right of return." In 1997, Germany even signed a treaty acknowledging the irrevocability of the expulsion. Germany has raised the question several times, and the Czech decision was considered a crime in the Western world, it really was a crime against innocents, in the stalinist stile, and great anti-communist propaganda. It was one of the worst decisions of the communist movement ever, inspired on the stalinist deportations. (i can assure you that this is one of the worst mistakes communism ever made, and still members of communist parties worldwide have to answer questions about this mistake)
Germany finally accepted to leave this issue because most refugees do not want to return to a country much poorer than their current homeland.

* When the communists took power in Vietnam, millions of "boat people" fled to the United States and various Asian countries. No one has ever suggested that these people have a "right of return." actually those people HAVE the right of return, and many who went to hongkong have returned now that the economy in Vietnam is improving.


* In the five years after its establishment in 1948, Israel absorbed close to 500,000 Jewish refugees - about half from the wreckage of the Holocaust and the remainder from Arab countries.

A similar number poured in over the next three years. As a result, the new state's population had doubled by 1953 and tripled by 1956. Yet no one has ever suggested that these refugees have a "right of return" to their countries of origin. Many left voluntarily and did never show any interest in returning, on the contrary to the palestinians. The ones who want to return should have the right to return or receive indemnation, i'm sure this question will be raised on any peace-conference dealing with the refugee-question.



The Moslems who fled India became full-fledged citizens of Pakistan. The Sudeten Germans were fully absorbed in Germany. The Vietnamese boat people are now productive citizens of the US. Jewish refugees from the Arab world have been fully integrated into Israel. The difference is that moslims in pakistan have no desire to return, nor sudeten-germans. Also pakistan and germany have accepted them, while the Arab countries haven't. That was their decision, they could accept them but were not forced to, but israel is forced by international law to take them back.



Ironically, the one country that did try to improve the situation of the refugees was Israel. I hope he is joking...

In Gaza, for instance, some 36,000 refugees had been moved into better housing by 1973, before international pressure and PLO threats against the refugees put a stop to the project. Any improvement in the camps was because of un-aid efforts. Israel did close to nothing for the refugees, who still live in camps.

The most astonishing element in this tale of neglect, however, is the role of the Palestinians themselves.

Most of the refugees have been under autonomous Palestinian rule for the last five years - yet the Palestinian Authority has spent not one cent of the millions of dollars it received in foreign aid to improve their living conditions. Apparently, it, too, prefers to let its people suffer for propaganda purposes. This is part of the big lie. The pa has not done enough, but in the mid and late 90's more improvement happened in the infrastructure, education, construction, etc. than in the last 15 years. (with international and especially european help)



It is impossible not to pity refugees who, thanks to the callous unconcern of their fellow Arabs, have been living in misery for the last 50 years. But that does not entitle them to a "right of return" accorded no other refugees in history. actually it is not because Ruandans, Jews and bosnians have been massacred that massacring people is the right thing to do...
Etnic cleansing and refusing refugees to return is illegal.

The only just solution to their problem is for the Arab world, and particularly the Palestinian state-to-be, to absorb them - just as Israel has absorbed Jewish refugees the world over since 1948. The only feasable solution would be a compromise that would both grand the palestinian right to return and israel's demographic concerns.

[brraverishhh]

Any improvement in the camps was because of un-aid efforts. Israel did close to nothing for the refugees, who still live in camps. That's patent lunacy. One, why should Israel do anything about it? And Two the UN has kept those PA'rs in squalor and deprivation. They are the UN's permanent underclass management project and like all biug bureacracies have taken on a permanence of their own. Now it's in the UN's internal organizational mission to keep them there.


This is part of the big lie. The pa has not done enough, but in the mid and late 90's more improvement happened in the infrastructure, education, construction, etc. than in the last 15 years. (with international and especially european help)
What improvement? What roads? What post office? What bills of lading? What health care? What what what what. Read Rachel Ehrenriech's work on "Where does the money go?" Basically the PA is a mob that holds monopolies that extort money from their own people.


actually it is not because Ruandans, Jews and bosnians have been massacred that massacring people is the right thing to do... No one cares what's nice and fuzzy. Stop being soft headed on the one hand and excusing cold blooded murder on the other. Sit down shut up.

Ethnic cleansing and refusing refugees to return is illegal. No Its Not.
Stop throwing RACIST terms around.


The only feasable solution would be a compromise that would both grand the palestinian right to return and israel's demographic concerns That's the extent of your analysis? The only path?

So let me ask you. In any of your other diatribes about evil Israel evil US evil Jews ethnic this that and the other how come none of those other things you hate have anything to do with the 'occupation'?

WTF is that? I'll tell you. It's because you are as comitted as any run of the mill raging intifadist to the death and destruction of Israel and all the Jews living there. Shanda, look it up.

[S.T.D.]

Don't bother arguing with Takeo - his only "sources" are either extreme "peacenik" site (ie. Arab Propoganda) or pure and simple Arab Propoganda sites.

He doesn't have any facts, and he can't support them. He'll just use the same old tactics of turning a word around against the user, destroying that word of meaning because the fit is so wrong.

He's a BS artist, that's it. Forget him. I wish he WAS serious about taking a good look at the situation.

[Lt_Apple]

There is a relation between the occupation and the etnic cleansing. The reason is that the etnic cleansing prevented a general peace between the Arab world and israel and the 50's and 60's, which on its turn was used as an excuse by israel to invade in 1967.
You don't know nothing about my goals and motives, and you are totally besides the truth, because you refuse to understand the real causes of the intifadeh. "They're all terrorists" is just an easy excuse to stop all criticism on israel. 1 - you don't ask questions you throw out hot button terms like ethnic cleansing and then dare anyone to doubt you

2 - you still haven't answered any of my questions, what is the correlation between anything that happened before 1967 and/or since then but outside of Israel - seemingly "it's the occupation" is an easy excuse to stop thinking critically.

3 - there was no excuse to be strangled to death in 1967 - you make up reasons for it on a daily basis, what you said makes literally zero sense - but truly you are behind the rhetorical curve, they have passed on that point already and have started claiming that the Arabs did not attack in 1948 - that it was the Jews who did. You really should stay current.

[tgs]

Originally posted by abu afak
* Millions of Moslems fled India for Pakistan following the bloody riots of 1947. India not only stripped them of citizenship, but barred them, in its constitution, from ever returning. No one ever suggested that these Moslems had a "right of return." These days, we should emphasize not the Right of Return, but the Palestinian Right of Departure from Israel.

It is unfortunate, though, that their fellow Arabs have closed their borders to the Palestinians, locking them out.

Nonetheless, the right to depart is an important one for Palestinians to keep in mind and Israel should assist the Palestinians by making sure that the borders into other Arab states are kept wide open for Palestinians to use.