Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

See thread about 1921 Jaffa riots (as the Jewish Virtual Library calls them) - indeed, I could not find Arab condemnation on the web of the attacks against Jewish civilians by Arabs.

It is noted there that the attacks were against immigrants from Europe, including an influx of 67,000 in 1924 after pogroms in Europe.

These riots did lead to Britain halting the emmigration of Europeans to Palestine (British Mandate Palestine).

So, Helen has a point when she pinpoints the immigration of Europeans to Palestine as the problem - but as I stated earlier, I don't agree with her solution.

Cheers,
Shafique

Jewish immigrants in that period were legal immigrants AFAIK.

Perhaps the real problem was illegal Arab immigration during that period.

As a British governor observered:

This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria

And

In 1930, the Hope Simpson Commission, sent from London to investigate the 1929 Arab riots, said the British practice of ignoring the uncontrolled illegal Arab immigration from Egypt, Transjordan and Syria had the effect of displacing the prospective Jewish immigrants

Flying Dutchman wrote:Jewish immigrants in that period were legal immigrants AFAIK.

Yes, the Brits were shipping in the Europeans and as they were the rulers of Palestine, the immigration was indeed legal.

As for Arab migration from other parts of British Ruled parts of the region - this would only be illegal if there was a law banning migration from the East of the Jordan river, Syria to the North and Egypt to the south of Palestine. I'll have to look up the reference in the Hope Simpson Commission which says such migration was illegal (and which laws it broke).

The point is that the tensions were between new European immigrants and Arabs already present in Palestine. I didn't know that the evidence would clearly show that it was immigration and not religion that was at the root of the riots/tension - and that this dates back to the 1920s. The influx of Europeans was indeed due to pogroms, but pogroms that Arabs had nothing to do with (as they were in Europe).

Cheers,
Shafique

Ok, I've had a look at the report:
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E3E ... 19004F057C


Firstly, what is immediately apparent, is that Palestine existed before 1948. The report is about Palestine, mentions it in detail (describing the areas, geography etc), makes it clear it is distinct from TransJordan, Syria, Egypt - in fact clearly defines the boundaries of Palestine. (It doesn't call it 'British Mandate Palestine' - just Palestine and refers to the industries, lands etc as 'Palestinian' and refers to the 'average individual Palestinian cultivator'. It distinguishes between Palestinians who are Arab and Jew and Christian(and others).

It has the relative populations of each group in 1920s and in the 1930s (showing the largest influx by far is from the Jewish population). The supposition that it was Arab migration that was the problem does is not borne out in these stats. However the report goes into detail as to what the problems were and what the recommendation was (it recommends that Jewish immigration be ceased).

It highlights a difference between Zionists and other Jewish settlers (notably PICA - Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association - communities of more established Jewish settlers - 34 associations which started in 1882 - as per Ch 5 of the report):

From pg 50:

THE EFFECT OF THE JEWISH SETTLEMENT ON THE ARAB.

P.I.C.A.'s relations with the Arab.In discussing the question of the effect of Jewish Settlement on the Arab it is essential to differentiate between the P.I.C.A. colonisation and that of the Zionist Organisation.
In so far as the past policy of the P.I.C.A. is concerned, there can be no doubt that the Arab has profited largely by the installation of the colonies. Relations between the colonists and their Arab neighbours were excellent. In many cases, when land was bought by the P.I.C.A. for settlement, they combined with the development of the land for their own settlers similar development for the Arabs who previously occupied the land. All the cases which are now quoted by the Jewish authorities to establish the advantageous effect of Jewish colonisation on the Arabs of the neighbourhood, and which have been brought to notice forcibly and frequently during the course of this enquiry, are cases relating to colonies established by the P.I.C.A., before the KerenHayesod came into existence. In fact, the policy of the P.I.C.A. was one of great friendship for the Arab. Not only did they develop the Arab lands simultaneously with their own, when founding their colonies, but they employed the Arab to tend their plantations, cultivate their fields, to pluck their grapes and their oranges. As a general rule the P.I.C.A. colonisation was of unquestionable benefit to the Arabs of the vicinity.

It is also very noticeable, in travelling through the P.I.C.A. villages, to see the friendliness of the relations which exist between Jew and Arab. It is quite a common sight to see an Arab sitting in the verandah of a Jewish house. The position is entirely different in the Zionist colonies.

And the Zionist policies are truly racist:

The effect of the Zionist colonisation policy on the Arab. Actually the result of the purchase of land in Palestine by the Jewish National Fund has been that land has been extraterritorialised. It ceases to be land from which the Arab can gain any advantage either now or at any time in the future. Not only can he never hope to lease or to cultivate it, but, by the stringent provisions of the lease of the Jewish National Fund, he is deprived for ever from employment on that land. Nor can anyone help him by purchasing the land and restoring it to common use. The land is in mortmain and inalienable. It is for this reason that Arabs discount the professions of friendship and good will on the part of the Zionists in view of the policy which the Zionist Organisation deliberately adopted.

And the report goes on to dismiss the reasons the Zionists give for this policy.

So, pretty clear evidence that the issue is with Zionism and not Judaism.



It does, indeed state that illegal immigration from Syria etc is material - this is in Ch 10:

Importation of other than Jewish labour.Further, it is clear that if unemployment is a valid reason for preventing Jewish immigration, it is also a reason for preventing importation of labour of other nationalities. At the time of writing, even with marked unemployment among Arabs, ^Egyptian labour is being employed in certain individual cases, and its ingress has been the subject of adverse comment in the Press.

Prevention of illicit immigration. Finally, in closing the front door, steps should be taken to ensure that the backdoor should not be kept open for would-be immigrants into Palestine. The Chief Immigration Officer has brought to notice that illicit immigration through Syria and across the northern frontier of Palestine is material. This question has already been discussed. It may be a difficult matter to ensure against this illicit immigration, but steps to this end must be taken if the suggested policy is adopted, as also to prevent unemployment lists being swollen by immigrants from TransJordania.

It says that both legal immigration should stop and that illegal immigration should also be prevented more strongly. Therefore, Palestine is indeed viewed as a separate territorial entity - and Transjordan residents are only legally resident in Transjordan.

Thanks FD - an enlightening read.

Cheers,
Shafique

Thanks for confirming that Jewish immigration was legal, while Arab illegal immigration was substantial.

As for the root cause of the conflict, I blame the Turks.

And Deir Yassin? That wasn't carried out by Israeli soldiers - but by Jewish terrorists, I'd argue. Do you agree?

Nope, the operation was carried out by members of the Irgun and the Stern gang, not members of the Haganah.

As for Benny changing his mind as he gets older, I see parallels between his revisionism of his own earlier findings (which revised the Israeli spin) with the difference between the earlier scholarly works of Bernard Lewis and his later polemical writings (which contradict his earlier works).

Thus spoke our resident scholar. I'm sure you're well versed on the topic, which is why you've managed to make several mistakes and backpedal a few times already.

Benny knew he was contradicting Israeli propaganda when he examined historical records and published his findings, so he can't claim ignorance of what he was saying.

He also contradicted the Arab spin (including what you and berrin already claimed in this thread).

Hey, until I read up on the issue of the Palestinian, I believed the mainstream spin that the Jews kicked the Palestinians off the land.

The truth is that much of the land was legally purchased by the Jews (something the whites in what is now America almost never did, Canada is different story, though) during Ottoman and British rule. Yes, there was illegal Jewish immigration, but there was also illegal Arab immigration.

The kicker is that illegal Arab immigration to Palestine under the British happened because the economy grew dramatically as a result of the absorption of Jewish (European) methods in agriculture, etc.

-- Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:19 am --

Of course there was never a head count on the number of illegal Arab immigrants.

The Brits weren't too interested. One can extrapolate total illegal immigration based on the reports where the British did investigate illegal immigration in certain regions/cities.

event horizon wrote:

And Deir Yassin? That wasn't carried out by Israeli soldiers - but by Jewish terrorists, I'd argue. Do you agree?

Nope, the operation was carried out by members of the Irgun and the Stern gang, not members of the Haganah.

FAIL. Epic FAIL.

Re-read what I wrote - I said that the massacre of Palestinian civilians was NOT carried out by Israeli soldiers, but by Jewish Terrorists.

FD seems reluctant to label the massacre as a terrorist act by Jewish Terrorists, or Terrorists period. So by saying 'Nope' you're disagreeing with my statement that the massacre was carried out by Jewish Terrorists and not Israeli soldiers (Haganah). Young man, you're slipping.


However, as Benny Morris has shown - the Haganah did indeed rape Arab women, and in some cases murder them afterwards. I couldn't immediately find a reference where these rapes by Israeli soldiers were either acknowledged or condemned by the Haganah (I'm not saying they weren't, just that I haven't seen these referneces yet).

eh/FD - is there such an acknowledgement and apologie/condemnation for the rape and murders of Palestinian women by Israeli soldiers in 1948?

event horizon wrote:The truth is that much of the land was legally purchased by the Jews (something the whites in what is now America almost never did, Canada is different story, though) during Ottoman and British rule. Yes, there was illegal Jewish immigration, but there was also illegal Arab immigration.

No doubt - the Jewish settlers who weren't Zionists got on well with the non-Jewish Palestinians - the Hope Simpson report says that above (it was common for Arabs and Jews to sit together on verandas of Jewish homes, for example, in the Jewish colonies set up by PICA). However the Zionists practiced segregation and had a philosophy behind their Apartheid policy.

Therefore the friction was over jobs and the massive amount of immigration from Europe (in 1920s there were 70,000 Jews in Palestine, by the time of the report it was close to 170,000 - see report for details - with 67,000 coming in after European pogroms in 1924, for example)

event horizon wrote:The kicker is that illegal Arab immigration to Palestine under the British happened because the economy grew dramatically as a result of the absorption of Jewish (European) methods in agriculture, etc.

Yes, that may well indeed be the case - and the report makes this point as well. The non-Zionist immigration did indeed benefit the economy and the Arab Palestinians - but the Zionist apartheid policies did not. The point is that the Arabs and non-Zionist Jews did get on and did live in harmony. Not my conclusion - the cold hard facts in the report.

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman wrote:Thanks for confirming that Jewish immigration was legal, while Arab illegal immigration was substantial.

The report highlights that not all of the Jewish immigration was legal. It cites an example of Yemenite Jews entering on 'Travellers' visas and then staying on - so those examples would be illegal (in fact it reproduces a letter to demonstrate the problem).


The Arab illegal immigration was 'material' - i.e. could not be ignored if curbs were made to European immigration as recommended, which is subtly different from 'significant'.

The conclusions of the report were simply that all immigration from that point onwards by Jews from Europe should stop, and that efforts should also be made to curb Arab immigration too. The scale of the Jewish immigration from Europe is documented in the report and the conclusion was that enough had happened, and that continued immigration would cause problems. Pretty prescient and on the money!

But yes, I've always maintained that those who emigrated to Palestine (as the country was called then) legally, should indeed be allowed to stay. Those that emigrated legally to Israel, again there is no problem with that.

The only problem is over stolen Palestinian land and the refusal to let those people who owned real estate to return to their legally owned homes/lands. The stolen land is in post-division Palestine and Israel proper.

But I thank you for not disagreeing with the facts in the report:

1. Palestine existed. (separate from TransJordan, Syria and Egypt)
2. Palestinians referred to both Jews and Arab (and Christian) Palestinians
3. The tensions were over economic issues not religion
4. The non-Zionist European Jews got on well with the Arabs - PICA colonies did not impose an apartheid policy that the Zionists imposed (and justified in the report).


Pretty much blows away your oft-cited canard that 'there was no Palestine' etc.

Cheers,
Shafique

FD - sorry, I know I posted a lot yesterday and it is easy to over look specific questions I asked you. But this one is still hanging (and I referred to the point in my reply to eh above):

shafique wrote:Why are you refusing to say whether you agree that the Jewish killers of Deir Yassin who slaughtered up to 110 (according to Morris) or over 250 (according to Irgun at the time), were terrorists or not?

Are you ashamed to answer the question? (Serious question, not rhetorical).

Do you classify those who killed the civilians in Deir Yassin and who did it (according to the head of Irgun) to instil panic amongst Arabs, as Terrorists?

To me it is a clear open and shut case - they killed civilians to impose terror (and arguably because they wanted to ethnically cleanse that village), and they were Jewish. Ergo they are literally Jewish Terrorists.

I've asked this specific point at least 5 times now, you've obfuscated like a politician. And you know what I'm like when it comes to unanswered questions!!

Were the killers of Deir Yassin terrorists or not?

Cheers,
Shafique

You keep on changing the question after I answer it. But OK, since you are so interested in my opinion.
Lets me start by saying I join you in condemning the killing of civilians.
Deir Yassin I consider a war crime, as Benny Morris does.
Arab progroms against Jews (which happened before Deir Yassin) I consider acts of terrorism.

My claim is that there has never been an independent Palestine, don't really know why that is a canard.

Where the Hope Simpson report expresses concern about illegal Arab immigration, the Peel report claims that Jewish land purchases are not the problem, on the contrary!

"Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased...There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land."

Check satelitte pics, and get the answer where the term Green Line is so appropriate!

The Peel Report also mentioned something I didn't know:

The report recommended that "[s]ooner or later there should be a transfer of land and, as far as possible, an exchange of population":

A convention was signed by the Greek and Turkish Governments, providing that, under the supervision of the League of Nations, Greek nationals of the Orthodox religion living in Turkey should be compulsorily removed to Greece, and Turkish nationals of the Moslem religion living in Greece to Turkey. The numbers involved were high — no less than some 1,300,000 Greeks and some 400,000 Turks. But so vigorously and effectively was the task accomplished that within about eighteen months from the spring of 1923 the whole exchange was completed.

My claim is that there has never been an independent Palestine, don't really know why that is a canard.

Get your facts right..There is nothing to compare or to resemble the kind of exchange took place between Turks and Greeks..
http://www.hamdden.co.uk/Images/Palesti ... ss_Map.jpg

Berrin wrote:There is nothing to compare or to resemble the kind of exchange took place between Turks and Greeks.

About 1,7 million people where exchanged. The IPC caused around 700,000 Arab refugees and 800,000 Jewish refugess.

You mean zion jews exchanged with Arabs for Arab lands and Arabs still exchanged for Arab lands?

Flying Dutchman wrote:You keep on changing the question after I answer it. But OK, since you are so interested in my opinion.
Lets me start by saying I join you in condemning the killing of civilians.
Deir Yassin I consider a war crime, as Benny Morris does.
Arab progroms against Jews (which happened before Deir Yassin) I consider acts of terrorism.

Ok, thanks for answering the questions.

I can now see that you consder the Irgun's killing of civilians to be a war crime (which I agree) but stop short of saying this was terrorism. When Arabs killed Jewish people, that is terrorism.

Fair enough. To me the Irgun war crime was clearly an act of terrorism, because they intended to cause 'Arab panic' when they committed the war crime. But that's just my interpretation of what terrorism means.

At least we agree that Deir Yassin was a war crime and we both condemn the killing of civilians.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Where the Hope Simpson report expresses concern about illegal Arab immigration, the Peel report claims that Jewish land purchases are not the problem, on the contrary!

I haven't yet read the Peel report - so can't really comment. You brought up what the Hope Simpson report says, and it says that European Immigration should stop (and it did) and that Arab illegal immigration was material and should also be stopped if the recommendations for European immigration to stop.

Hope Simpson also pinpoints the problems to not one of land purchase - but one of differences between Zionist land purchases and contrasting it with non-Zionist Jewish settlements.

Therefore, the issue is clearly not a religious issue between non-jews and Jews - for the report says that Arabs and Jews were on very friendly terms in the PICA colonies, but not in the Zionist ones. The difference was the attitude of the Jewish side, not the Arab side (in the former, there was no policy of 'separateness' but the latter there was).

And this is back in the 1930s.

This was a revelation to me, and for that I thank you.

Cheers,
Shafique

Strange, someone arguing that the IPC conflict is not about land.

The idea of 'Jewish labor' is quite known, interesting enough one of the arguments for it came from the (far) left Zionist movement. They didn't want to be capitalist and hire cheap (Arab) labour. I guess you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. If they would hire cheap Arab labor they would have been capitalist exploiters.

Well, if we now agree that the conflict is over land and not religion, then we have indeed made progress.

As I said, I have to thank you for introducing me to the Hope Simpson report and uncovering what it said was happening in 1930 - with Arabs and European Jewish immigrants living side by side in harmony, and contrasted with the Zionist communities who gave reasons for wanting to remain separate from the Arabs.

Had I not read the report (and just read the summaries widely available), I would have missed this revelation.

Cheers,
Shafique

You are welcome. I realize you still have a lot to learn.

Still astonishing that have somebody having an Israel obessive disorder was not aware of the Simpson report and Jewish labor.

Our resident scholar clearly knows everything.

Although I like how he now presents himself as being familiar with the material (more so than you, FD) when he just glanced through it today.

shafique wrote:Therefore the friction was over jobs and the massive amount of immigration from Europe (in 1920s there were 70,000 Jews in Palestine, by the time of the report it was close to 170,000 - see report for details - with 67,000 coming in after European pogroms in 1924, for example)

Well, according to one contemporary account (Palestine Post), illegal Arab immigration was twice the level of illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine.

It should also be pointed out that the Arabs and Palestinian economy benefited from more than just Jewish capital and finance. The Arabs learned modern agricultural practices that tripled or quadrupled the number of agricultural crops harvested in the span of merely a decade.

But I'm glad you agree with me that Jewish immigration brought improvements. We just disagree with whether or not Jews took jobs away from Palestinian laborers or if those jobs were taken away from unskilled illegal Arab immigrants.

Flying Dutchman wrote:You are welcome. I realize you still have a lot to learn.

Indeed, the more I read, the more I realise how much there is still to learn - seriously.


Hey, as I said, I didn't know that the report graphically showed the difference between European Jews who emigrated from the 1880s onwards to Palestine and who got on well with the Arab Palestinians (and indeed did benefit all the residents of Palestine), and the Zionists who set up shop later and chose to live separate lives.

The fact that this was apparent in a report from the 1930s and concluded that further European immigration should be stopped, was an eye-opener.

What is less surprising is that this aspect of the report is not found in the many summaries available on the web!


What is very clear, is that this is not about Islam vs Judaism, but rather a reaction to apartheid policies applied by the later immigrants who came in the 10s of thousands and had a significant and material impact on the economy and resources.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:Well, according to one contemporary account (Palestine Post), illegal Arab immigration was twice the level of illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine.
immigrants.

Also let snot forget the UN had to change their definition of a refugee into:

"persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948"

Think about it, two years of residency!

I believe this new unique definition is one of causes of the current "refugee" problem.

^Strawman.

The UN resolutions call for a just solution to the refugee issue - and this can indeed include who is classed as a refugee. The surivors and descendants of Deir Yassin, for example, would clearly be refugees and certainly could show they resided in their village for more than 2 years.

In fact there are deeds from the Ottoman period that are available (along with house keys) that can be used to establish credentials of returning refugees, and not to mention the documents from the British Mandate period.

Anyway, thanks to eh for pointing out that illegal Jewish immigration also took place, but at levels below Arab levels. I think the Palestinians won't begrudge those illegal Jewish immigrants from staying - a retrospective amnesty, if you will.

Do you know what became of the 34 PICA colonies mentioned in the Hope Simpson report - where Arabs and Jews lived in harmony and benefited from each other? Did they adopt the practices of the later 'Zionist' colonies (as described in the report?). Serious question - are these colonies in areas where Arab Israelis live in harmony with their non-Zionist Jewish neighbours today?

Cheers,
Shafique

Interesting statement that the PICA (Palestine Jewish Colonization Association) was not part of the Zionist endeavor. Although they had their disagreements with the Zionist movement, especially on the political level, the Rothchilds did support the Zionist idea.

I agree, every Arab that can show s/he is Palestinian by showing a Palestinian passport issued by the British Mandate should be compensated.

Before reading the report, I didn't know about PICA.

from pg50:

THE EFFECT OF THE JEWISH SETTLEMENT ON THE ARAB.

P.I.C.A.'s relations with the Arab.In discussing the question of the effect of Jewish Settlement on the Arab it is essential to differentiate between the P.I.C.A. colonisation and that of the Zionist Organisation.
In so far as the past policy of the P.I.C.A. is concerned, there can be no doubt that the Arab has profited largely by the installation of the colonies. Relations between the colonists and their Arab neighbours were excellent. In many cases, when land was bought by the P.I.C.A. for settlement, they combined with the development of the land for their own settlers similar development for the Arabs who previously occupied the land. All the cases which are now quoted by the Jewish authorities to establish the advantageous effect of Jewish colonisation on the Arabs of the neighbourhood, and which have been brought to notice forcibly and frequently during the course of this enquiry, are cases relating to colonies established by the P.I.C.A., before the KerenHayesod came into existence. In fact, the policy of the P.I.C.A. was one of great friendship for the Arab. Not only did they develop the Arab lands simultaneously with their own, when founding their colonies, but they employed the Arab to tend their plantations, cultivate their fields, to pluck their grapes and their oranges. As a general rule the P.I.C.A. colonisation was of unquestionable benefit to the Arabs of the vicinity.

It is also very noticeable, in travelling through the P.I.C.A. villages, to see the friendliness of the relations which exist between Jew and Arab. It is quite a common sight to see an Arab sitting in the verandah of a Jewish house. The position is entirely different in the Zionist colonies.

I consider the Rothchilds and the developers of RishonLeZion Zionists, although they were not members of the World Zionist Organization around that time.

Yes, it is interesting that there seems to be such a difference between the two groups, the report does mention that the PICA was set up by the Rothchilds and started in the 1880s IIRC. I guess we need to look beyond labels at actual actions, so it is arguable that the PICA colonists were Zionists, but distinct from the later Zionist settlers - however, I'm just going by the distinction quoted above (which the report says 'it is essential to differentiate')

It seems a shame that the later colonies could not continue with the examples described in the report!

(Oh, and the report also records the reasons why the Zionists gave for choosing their policy of 'apartheid'/separateness, and the report gives its assessment of these reasons)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:and this can indeed include who is classed as a refugee. The surivors and descendants of Deir Yassin, for example, would clearly be refugees and certainly could show they resided in their village for more than 2 years.

No, refugee status does not cover the descendants of refugees. It is only the Palestinians do people change the definition of refugee to include their children and their children's children.

Hey, as I said, I didn't know that the report graphically showed the difference between European Jews who emigrated from the 1880s onwards to Palestine and who got on well with the Arab Palestinians (and indeed did benefit all the residents of Palestine), and the Zionists who set up shop later and chose to live separate lives.

The Jews who came into Palestine in the late nineteenth century were Zionists just as much as later waves of Jewish immigration were. It was actually in the twenties and thirties that the agricultural production of the Pal-Arabs dramatically improved - not in the early twentieth/late nineteenth century. Showing that it was from the later Zionist legal immigrants that the Pal-Arabs greatly benefited from, too.

What is very clear, is that this is not about Islam vs Judaism, but rather a reaction to apartheid policies applied by the later immigrants who came in the 10s of thousands and had a significant and material impact on the economy and resources.

We can see if these practices actually had a significant negative impact on the local economy. From what I read of the summary, the Jews would only hire Jewish workers/labor for work on their Kibbutzims. Assuming this was the only practice of the later Jews, then it is clear that would not have affected Arab employment and the economy of Palestine as you have repeatedly claimed.

Sigh, did you read the last exchange FD and I had above - it addresses the differences between the Zionists who decided to live separately from the Arabs and the European Jewish Colonists who didn't. The quote from the report is above and even highlighted in blue.

Therefore, in the 1930s, you already had evidence that it was not a Islam vs Judaism thing, but rather on whether the colonials decided to work with the existing Palestinians or keep separate from them.

It is also very noticeable, in travelling through the P.I.C.A. villages, to see the friendliness of the relations which exist between Jew and Arab. It is quite a common sight to see an Arab sitting in the verandah of a Jewish house. The position is entirely different in the Zionist colonies.

And

In discussing the question of the effect of Jewish Settlement on the Arab it is essential to differentiate between the P.I.C.A. colonisation and that of the Zionist Organisation.

As for your views on who is entitled to return to their lands, I expected you to share the views of Baruch Goldstein on this issue - and it seems I was right.

Cheers,
Shafique

Interesting that you refer to legal immigrants as 'colonists'.

Should speak volumes about your own personal beliefs.

Anyways, I'm unaware of the 'apartheid' practices of the later Jewish immigrants. Perhaps you can tell me if it was something more than small minority business owners choosing who they can and cannot hire.

As for your views on who is entitled to return to their lands, I expected you to share the views of Baruch Goldstein on this issue - and it seems I was right.

Why ? Did BG correctly say that the descendants of refugees are not actually refugees themselves ?

Anyways, what about this rule about quoting me every time you respond to something I 'wrote' that you are clearly not following ?

It seems like this is another case of epic reading failure on your part.

event horizon wrote:Interesting that you refer to legal immigrants as 'colonists'.

I'm quoting the report that FD referred to - colonies are inhabited by colonials.

event horizon wrote:Anyways, I'm unaware of the 'apartheid' practices of the later Jewish immigrants. Perhaps you can tell me if it was something more than small minority business owners choosing who they can and cannot hire.

Read the report, page 50 onwards. It gives the reasons why the Zionists wanted the separation/apartheid and the report gives its verdict on these reasons.

Here's the link (again)
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E3E ... 19004F057C

Cheers,
Shafique

link the report and i can read it as you request