Snapped Shot

tutu has a real point. the only reason that the UN approved the creation of israel is because of european guilt over the holocaust and the desire to resolve the post-WW2 "jewish question" (i.e. what do to with millions of homeless jews freed from concentration camps but whose property was already inhabited by someone else). that led to the ethnic cleansing during the 1948 israeli war of independence and widespread seizures of arab owned lands since 1967. if the holocaust hadn't happened, there would have been no israeli land grab in palestine.
Reply  

wow, did you misunderstand my comment or what?

but hey, never let it be said that i don't answer the good cap'n's questions:

"You seriously believe this?"

yes, that's why i wrote it.

"Do you also believe that our war with Japan was an attempt at ethnic cleansing and land grabs?"

no, i don't believe that. especially because the u.s. didn't actually try to settle japan after it was defeated.

"We aggressively attacked Japan for no reason?"

no. what a ridiculous question, and one that has nothing to do with my above comment.

"This is sad. Shows that revisionist-history is taking a greater foothold, else arab propagandists are having more success than we thought could happen.

You are believing lies upyernoz. There is no evidence at all for your beliefs."

huh? what specifically did i revise? identify a single lie from my above comment.

"If you want to talk about land grab, the so-called Palestinians are trying to grab Israel's lands, through politics and hopeful ethnic cleansing(as you say), while they had already been given Jordan."

what? that's pretty crazy. especially since jordan isn't part of historic palestine. i mean say some arab country suddenly ruled over the u.s. one day it's army showed up and threw you out of your home. would it make you feel better to be evicted if you are told "hey, you english-speakers have canada!" talk about propaganda...
Reply  

[em]Thus my asking you if you believe the same for our war with Japan?[/em]

so you think if one conflict began one way, that means that every other conflict must have begun the exact same way? you really believe that? by that logic, the civil war began because saddam hussain invaded kuwait.

obviously, stating how one particular conflict began doesn't mean that i think every other war in history began the same way. isn't that rather ohvious?

[em]The same happened with Israel and the arabs. Israel reacted defensively and has been at war with them ever since.[/em]

i notice your timeline starts about 6 months after mine. why is that? you've skipped over the part where the UN (at that time was much smaller, with member states that were mostly from europe and north american) created the jewish state in british controlled palestine, where a majority of the residents were non-jewish arabs. then millions of jews, mostly holocaust survivors from europe, flooded into palestine and declared the existence of a state that privileges jews over every other group.

it is true that the arabs refused the 1948 compromise and attacked israel. but from their pespective, the israeli declaration of independence was itself a massive land grab. the declaration asserted sovereignty over land they had lived in for generations.

in other words, you haven't made the case of "revisionist history", you're ignoring the period of time i was mostly referring to.

[em]Israel also gave much of that land back as a gesture of good will, like the operation of Jerusalem[/em]

in this case you're simply wrong. israel has exerted total sovereignty over jerusalem since 1967. in fact, they've redefined the borders of "jerusalem" to include chunks of the west bank that were never considered to be part of the city before, and are expelling arab residents solely on the basis of their ethnicity.

the only thing i can think of that you might be referring to is the fact that israel has allowed muslims to administer (i.e. decide who enters, and charge admission if they want) to the haram al-sharif. but to call that giving them "operation of jerusalem" is rather silly. all they can do is control the entrance and exit to a single tourist spot in the city. that's like saying that the people who run the MOMA control the operations of new york city.

[em]If some arab nation conquered us, then they would be in the position to dictate where we would live. duh. Just like the UN and Britain had the right to dictate where those in the mid-east were to live.[/em]

oddly enough, this now puts you in the side of the most radical palestinian faction. if the conquering an area by force lets you do whatever you want with that territory (including expelling residents on the basis of ethnicity), then thats exactly what the most violent radical palestinian factions are advocating doing.
Reply