Let’s look at the facts. Nothing else. No rhetoric. The British colonize Palestine and neighboring Middle East territories in the late-1800’s/early-to-mid-1900’s. Small amounts of Jewish Zionists from Europeh move there in between 1903 and 1948. After WWII, many Jews felt unwelcomed and hated in Europe (especially Germany). Even though the Soviets ironically opposed the bourgeois passing their agenda, the Soviets saw Jews as a disproportionate bourgeois they’d gladly get rid of. The primary winners of WWII (U.S., U.K) knew oil would be a big commodity post-WWII (baby boom, high way construction) so it’d be important to have an ally in the Middle East. Britain knew the days in colonialism were numbered and it’d be too costly extensively maintaining military presence internationally. So why not turn it over to an a new ally? This was all while not recognizing that the indigenous population (the Palestinians) weren’t regarded for. Wouldn’t this be similar to the English pushing aside the Native Americans in colonial America? Wouldn’t it be like the bank telling you to move out of your house while a guy a couple blocks down could have it for free? Am I wrong about any of the facts I’ve stated?
The ironic thing is most Israeli Jews would admit and willingly tell you everything I just did. It is just a matter of greedy politicians trying to protect their own interests. Most people in the world acknowledge this the same. People in America simply don’t recognize the contradictions and are brainwashed by their media and corrupt elite who structure their education system to keep it that way.
Wasn’t the U.N. the same organization that declared Zionism a form of racism for like two decades? You’re going to have to do better than that professor. Saying an organization says something is useless. The U.N. told the U.S. not to invade Iraq. What good did that do? Please answer directly yourself. You didn’t answer the issue regarding the Palestinians. Tell you what. If you tell me that it was ethical for the Europeans to take the Native Americans lands, at least I’ll know where you stand. Otherwise, you seem hypocritical.
How exactly were the Jewish people indigenous to there 3,000 years ago? Most Israeli’s descend from Ashkenazi Jews who are indigenous to the Rhineland of Germany. And other parts of Europe. Migration always leads to intermingling with various indigenous populations too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85jSgzs9-nU&feature=related
Gino – Please watch this video or similar ones on Youtube.
Gino’s mom – I’d disagree. Jews have lived amongst all peoples for centuries and continue to do so. There is nothing supporting why they’d need a state. Hypothetically, even if they did, why should it come at the mercy of another people? Don’t you think the descendants of Holocaust surviving European Jews know themselves the horrors of being mistreated? Israeli Jews know these contradictions. They’re forced to live it every day because of their greedy politicians.
Why couldn’t have they stayed in Europe? I could see the logic of saying why in the late-1940’s you may have not wanted to. Who would have predicted more stability? Perhaps Europeans (mainly the British wanted Jews out of Europe bad enough they’d willingly deprive of their developing humane standards? If they felt that strongly, they should have just provided them a lowly populated European plot of land. I understand the Immigration Act of 1924 was still existent in the U.S. through 1965 which would have blockaded Jewish European immigration. Some argue that it was an Anti-Semitic policy. Some Jews would have saw becoming American as losing their Jewishness and a dipping of culture by migrating to the intellectually barren (I’m American telling you that).
By the way, you’re English is quite good for a Belgian.
The Palestinians wouldn’t argue that the indigenous Jews have a right to be there. They existed in harmony for centuries. You can’t bring in someone who is only the descendants of someone in theory and not even connected to them and say they are the same though. It’d be like a bunch of Americans moving to England to say telling Britons to get out. And that’d only be in theory as their colonial descendant rather than literal one.
Honestly, I don’t think it is justifiable nor ethical for any Israeli presence to be there. A Palestinian state should be fully established while Jews having the voluntary option of remaining there. As the Jewish Rabbi mentioning in that Youtube video, whites weren’t being killed in South Africa once Apartheid ended. There should be some U.N. military presence there to oversee what is going on in the beginning. If Israeli Jews don’t want to remain, they should leave. Perhaps neutral territories like Jerusalem should be designated as world property under the U.N. or similar to that of the Vatican State except ”religiousless” to serve all religions.
”Those Jews converted what was the sinkhole of the Ottoman empire in desirable real estate.”
This is a bias belief that you’ve probably received from western propaganda. While all Israeli real estate wasn’t and still may not be valuable, there are certain places (ex. Jerusalem) that are considered religiously sacred that is worth a lot. I understand Israeli’s helped make it more tourist friendly. Regardless, it wasn’t for European Jews, nor the Americans, English or French to decide how a people who’ve lived in a place for a long time to operate.
”I understand the Palestinians want a piece of land to call their own. But those same Palestinians should realize that this can only be achieved through negotiations, and not by force of arms. Even in the unlikely case they would win, you end up with another set of terrorists who want their land back.”
You’re jumping to square two without fully dealing with square one. I’m asking you what ethical explanation is there for Israel to exist as a state? There isn’t. And until this is confronted, the next steps are useless. As I’ve mentioned, the Jewish people are always politically divided and have various opinions. The current state Israel is operating in will not be what it is in one or two generations. And it won’t be due to American or international groups telling them what to do. A younger generation will create a more ethical code.
”Love it or hate it, the Jews did come from Judea, Palestine, Israel – whatever you call it.”
Josh – You’re not answering the question in a relevant manner. I am asking the ethics of it. Ashkenazi Jews (the predominant Israeli Jewish population) are not the indigenous descendants of people of that region. They’re indigenous to the European continent. Ashkenazi Jews were the ones who created the Zionist movement and the U.S. and U.K. were the ones who made it possible.
Even if they were the descendants of such, which they aren’t, it wouldn’t justify oppressing a people who’ve been living there far longer and more recently based on their own religious book. With that being said, most Jews don’t actually quote the Torah as their logical decision making in life. Many Israeli Jews are Atheist and Agnostic. And unlike Americans who go into a fit about this, the Jewish people (including Ashkenazis) are a culture and ethnicity and define themselves as such.
”Before the Balfour declaration, they were offered Uganda. Imagine what would have happened if they had accepted that offer….”
If it were a part of Uganda where few people lived, perhaps it wouldn’t be so bad. That obviously wouldn’t have been economically desirable for Jews nor Europeans. Nor would have it been fair to Ugandans either. For that matter too, Uganda is one of the smaller African countries. That would have been a mess just like this. If the Europeans believed the Jews should have a state, they should have secluded land for them in Europe. In all reality though, the European Jews didn’t need their own state as they never had one. If they didn’t feel comfortable in Europe, they could have moved abroad.
Any argument you make pass directly confronting the ethics of a European population migrating en masse to modern day Israeli land and kicking aside the Palestinians is not a valuable one in this question. I don’t want to hear the rhetoric of what may or may not have occurred in Arab nationalism. Who’d think that modernly developed European countries during the early-to-mid twentieth century would exterminate 2/3 of their Jewish population? Arabs and Jews have lived in harmony for centuries and would have continued to if it weren’t for American and British greed, and delusional biased Zionists.
The Angels – So you’re argument is the Palestinian people aren’t worth regarding for because they trace origin to a word you claim couldn’t be pronounced in Arabic? This is assuming you even speak a degree of Arabic. With all due respect, that is a crappy base of an argument. The difference between that of Israel and Palestine as opposed to Syria and Lebanon is that the indigenous populations of Syria and Lebanon still exist without European colonial presence of telling them what to do. Israeli in it’s own respect is a European colonizer – even if not directly from one European nation, because it a country with descendants from and operates on western political philosophy.
I’d give you that the Palestinian identity became more developed due to chaos. It doesn’t change the fact they were the people live there before and hundreds of thousands of years though. I don’t see how claiming Ashkenazi Jews – indigenous European Jews, have relevance to that. Like I said, it was just a matter of needing a home to go to. They didn’t provide it for themselves. The British and Americans used and gave into selfish Zionists because of their own economic benefit.
Any argument you make pass directly confronting the ethics of a European population migrating en masse to modern day Israeli land and kicking aside the Palestinians is not a valuable one in this question. I don’t want to hear the rhetoric of what may or may not have occurred in Arab nationalism. Who’d think that modernly developed European countries during the early-to-mid twentieth century would exterminate 2/3 of their Jewish population? Arabs and Jews have lived in harmony for centuries and would have continued to if it weren’t for American and British greed, and delusional biased Zionists.
What gives them the right to have a state in a place where they didn’t? Was the Ottoman Empire exactly there state? Did Anti-Semitism not occur under their rule? Why do you just assume Arabs would have went all out on Jews? They have nothing about the Jewish religion nor the Jewish people outside of politicking. Whether or not you have logic regarding politics, Palestinians attacking Israelis is an act of politicking. Basic history could show you Christians have had it out for Jews and Muslims. This is why I said no rhetoric.
SJC – I can honestly tell you are the laziest or slowest person who’ve answered on here. Either you didn’t read anything I wrote. Or the others for that matter. Or you simply are spewing out pro-Zionist garbage that you can think of for 2 points. I asked for ethical. You’re going on about the aftermath. That is rhetorical, political and irrelevant to the structure of the question which I explicitly asked for you not to do in the first few sentences. You’re going on about what the Palestinians have done (even without recognizing inhumane Israel acts too). When something occurs, both sides will fight. That isn’t what I’m disputing. What I’m disputing is the root and origin of the creation of the state of Israel. The majority of Israeli Jews would tell you everything I just told you and probably in greater detail. I see it is easier to talk to a bunch of barren Americans who couldn’t tell the difference between their hand and foot though.
You know what is really sad? And I mean really sad? There were people on here who answered like 2-3 sentences that required absolutely no intelligence that got lots of thumbs up. Probably the crowd that spends a little too much on Yahoo. Honestly, what ever your political view is, I respect. This wasn’t supposed to be a political discussion. I explicitly said that. But intellectual capacity on here was rather low. A few of you gave really good responses. But when you got one girl directly saying they’re too lazy to answer a question even while I said not to if that is what you’re going to do, that is embarrassing. It actually shows her to quite possibly have a mental disability. If she does, than I guess I can’t blame her.
What is funny though is that any pro-Zionist message even if short and vague seemed to get many thumbs up. And any anti-Zionist or even neutral post seemed to get lots of thumbs down. A predominantly American and intellectually barren crowd at it’s finest, huh?
certainly it was not ethical .there is nothing ethical in occupation
MR warren with all my respect teaching Geography and History of his own
any reliable source will show that Palestinians were the native inhabitants of the land, who have always been there. Any close look to Palestine’s history or geography will reveal that there were hundreds of Palestinian cities and villages that date back to thousands of years, many even to dates before Jewish existence.
As for references, I will provide only two here. The first one is from an Jewish site (often referred to by pro-Israelis). It clearly shows that for hundreds of years, the population of Palestine had less than 10% Jewish component. It only started to exceed this percentage after the Balfour declaration in 1917, when Britain opened the door for massive Jewish immigration to Palestine. You will also notice that the Arab population in the part of Palestine that is now called Israel drops from 70% in 1946 to only 17.9% in 1948. This sharp drop was a direct result of a brutal ethnic cleansing campaign by Zionists to empty the land from the Palestinians. In international law this is called a crime against humanity.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou…
The second reference is from Wikipedia showing population of Palestine from 1922 to 1945. The data here agrees closely with that in the above site. It shows that Jewish annual population growth rate during that period was 8.6%, which can be this high only through massive immigration. On the other hand the Arab population growth rate during the same period was only 2.6%, which was only from natural causes (by birth).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_m…
The UN divided the mandate between the Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The Jewish part became the State of Israel. and the Palestinian Arabs where is their part .they have no stat till now and the reason is obvious….. it is Israel
December 24th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
It was certainly ethical. The UN divided the mandate between the Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The Jewish part became the State of Israel. The Jewish people were indigenous to the area with a 3000 year claim.
References :
I teach Geography and History
December 24th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
To say that Israel is defending themselves is false. A foreign army occupying Palestine is not defense–you can call it whatever you want–it’s not defense.
Every square inch of Palestine will be taken back by Palestinians if the United States stops all unregulated aid to Israel. This aid is hard working American tax money-money that is being taken by the Jews to kill innocent women and children.
References :
December 24th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
You are not totally wrong but it is a fact that the Jewish people needed a State of their own.
They simply could not stay in Europe any longer and take the risk of being murdered after some period of time or even live as outcasts in a society that would not accept them.
As a European (Belgian) I would have found it more than natural if big countries would have provided a haven for the Jews where they could built their own State. Nevertheless it was Israel they wanted to go to and that is comprehensible. How the U.K.,Russia and the U.S. handled this is another question.Of course they were watching out for their own benefit and it is a fact that the Palestinians were treated in a most unfair way.
The problem as grown out of proportion now and though I have the greatest respect for the Jewish people cannot agree with their policy in Israel right now. It is simply unfair and they are applying tactics they run away from in the first place.
I wish I knew how this problem could be solved in a fair way for both parties but I don’t see it resolved in the near future. May time prove me wrong.
References :
December 24th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
It’s one of the toughest argument in history. Frankly Palestine was a province of the Roman Empire. Palestinians, Jews among others were living there.
After so many years of chaos, both Israelites and Palestinians have the right to claim their own country. What the Middle East problem started was that Israel was created after WW2, but the Palestinians were left countryless. The west, especially US has to be responsible for this unfairness.
The west should stop the bias due to the rich and powerful Jews in their country, and the Arabic countries especially Iran should stop the hostility against Israel. The situation was not the sin of Israel, it’s the sin of US.
The ultimate solution is to have a peaceful and fair co-existence of Israel and Palestine. Until that day we cannot possibly expect to have peace in that region.
References :
December 24th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
The UK didn’t ‘colonize’ Palestine. Along with the French, they dismantled the behemoth Ottoman Empire and created individual Arab nations. Palestine didn’t exist until the UK named one of their parcels after a historical artifact, and one that came from a Roman attempt to obliterate Jewish identity. The name itself, which is barely pronounceable in Arabic, comes from the Philistines, an Aegean group that captured cities along the coast to use as bases for marauding amongst the Egyptians, Israelites sand whomever else they could reach.
The UK named another parcel the ‘Mandate of Mesopotamia’. This area, along with a vilayet taken from Turkey, became Iraq. Should that be returned to the Mesopotamians? Can anyone even find Mesopotamians to give it to? The French named their parcel the ‘Mandate of Syria’ and divided it into the Lebanon and Syria. Syria wants the Lebanon (along with Jordan and Israel of course). Should they be allowed to take it over? It was the Mandate of Syria, after all, not the Mandate of the Lebanon and Syria.
During the Mandate period, ‘Palestinian’ most often referred to Jews, not Arabs. The Arabs there had for the most part moved in from the surrounding countries to take advantage of good job and infrastructure built in the region by Jews. There is no ‘Palestinian’ ethnicity, the identity is a product of the last 60 years. Most Palestinian Arabs know exactly where their families came from, Yasser Arafat was Egyptian.
But as an Egyptian, or Syrian, or Jordanian, they had no right to claim the entirety of the land. Identities that weren’t politically useful were cast off for a manufactured one that is.
7/8ths of the Mandate of Palestine became Transjordan (as in cis- and trans-, i.e. the land on the right side of the Jordan River) in 1922. 7/8ths. Jews are specifically forbidden from holding citizenship there, which means no voting or property rights either.
Of the remaining 1/8th, the UN proposed a partition which would create a Jewish-majority state and an Arab-majority state. People would be free to move as they wished, or stay. The Jews agreed and created Israel. The governments of the existing Arab nations refused and their armies invaded a day-old Israel. They gambled that 2nd Arab state on their belief that they could wipe out Israel altogether.
But then their goal was a 2nd Arab state. Their goal was a land-grab where they could claim as much of the territory for themselves as possible. Jordan annexed the West Bank and chucked the Arabs living there into refugee camps. Egypt did the same with Gaza, except that they didn’t formally make it part of their country. The Lebanon and Syria also built camps on the land they seized. Land that should have been that 2nd Arab nation.
Yes, there was a need for a safe haven for European Jewry. It took the Shoah for other people to wake up and realize it. But what of the million Middle Eastern Jews who were displaced as the relative tolerance of the Ottoman Empire ended and rising Arab nationalisms led to violence against them? Where were they supposed to live? Are they any less deserving of a safe home, simply because they weren’t subjected to the camps? Israel absorbed more than 600,000 of them.
Should they have been left stateless simply because the governments of Arab nations want the land for themselves?
References :
Why did you ask this in the History section if you’re going to dismiss every answer that takes a historical angle. I know you did it with mine, thanks to that oh so lovely diatribe you sent me, and I see you’ve done it with another in your AD.
Is that why you didn’t bother to read my answer enough to understand it? The point was that there were a million Jews in the Mid East who needed somewhere safe to live.
Middle Eastern Jews.
Not Europeans.
Middle Eastern Jews.
And you do look a bit silly when you dismiss Arab aggression against them as rant and rhetoric or European greed. It happened. Deal with it. It’s the ethical justification for a Mid Eastern Jewish-majority state.
December 24th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Love it or hate it, the Jews did come from Judea, Palestine, Israel – whatever you call it. When Jewish re-migration started very few people lived there. Few Jews and few Arabs. (Not Palestinians; they named themselves as such after 1948.) Those Jews converted what was the sinkhole of the Ottoman empire in desirable real estate.
Could they have set up somewhere else? Of course. Before the Balfour declaration, they were offered Uganda. Imagine what would have happened if they had accepted that offer….
Palestinians actually have their own homeland: Trans Jordania, or modern Jordan. After they tried to commit a coupe there, they were kicked out. The Black September Movement is named after that event.
I understand the Palestinians want a piece of land to call their own. But those same Palestinians should realize that this can only be achieved through negotiations, and not by force of arms. Even in the unlikely case they would win, you end up with another set of terrorists who want their land back.
Shooting quassam missiles into Israel and stating you want first Israel back followed by the rest of humanity converting to islam is not going to solve the problem.
References :
December 24th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
certainly it was not ethical .there is nothing ethical in occupation
MR warren with all my respect teaching Geography and History of his own
any reliable source will show that Palestinians were the native inhabitants of the land, who have always been there. Any close look to Palestine’s history or geography will reveal that there were hundreds of Palestinian cities and villages that date back to thousands of years, many even to dates before Jewish existence.
As for references, I will provide only two here. The first one is from an Jewish site (often referred to by pro-Israelis). It clearly shows that for hundreds of years, the population of Palestine had less than 10% Jewish component. It only started to exceed this percentage after the Balfour declaration in 1917, when Britain opened the door for massive Jewish immigration to Palestine. You will also notice that the Arab population in the part of Palestine that is now called Israel drops from 70% in 1946 to only 17.9% in 1948. This sharp drop was a direct result of a brutal ethnic cleansing campaign by Zionists to empty the land from the Palestinians. In international law this is called a crime against humanity.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou…
The second reference is from Wikipedia showing population of Palestine from 1922 to 1945. The data here agrees closely with that in the above site. It shows that Jewish annual population growth rate during that period was 8.6%, which can be this high only through massive immigration. On the other hand the Arab population growth rate during the same period was only 2.6%, which was only from natural causes (by birth).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_m…
The UN divided the mandate between the Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The Jewish part became the State of Israel. and the Palestinian Arabs where is their part .they have no stat till now and the reason is obvious….. it is Israel
References :
most of it from a question answered by Hatem A .in yahoo answers http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsVkiTKVIMeoIBX.zptQL2Hty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090115112003AAalxdJ
December 25th, 2009 at 12:30 am
ben gurion said the arabs will probably not be happy but they have to accept it.
hence IDF is pretty awesome
References :
December 25th, 2009 at 12:48 am
Ethics isn’t one of the criteria that comes into consideration in world politics. Obviously taking the land away from the folks who live in a place and giving it to someone else isn’t among the possible ways nations or people can behave and still called ethical.
Giving folks a piece of land and calling the fact it used to belong to people who worshipped the same diety 2000 years ago until the Romans ran them out of it a ‘claim’ requires some imagination, but it doesn’t require any ethics.
References :
December 25th, 2009 at 1:10 am
Which indigenous population are you referring to? Palestine,,Iraq,Jordan,Lebanon,and Syria did not become Arab countries until the Arab conquest of the 7th century; before this happened,the indigenous population was certainly not Arab.
So, as these Arab states in the Middle East were established by waging an aggressive war of conquest,was this ethical? If so, as it seems acceptable to you for Arab states to be created through territorial expansion and war,complaining about other states prospering the same way seems to be an inconsistent approach – and therefore invalidates your whole initial premise.
References :
December 25th, 2009 at 1:54 am
Yes you can, IF:
- You can describe ethnic cleansing as ethical.
- You can describe land theft as ethical.
- You can describe killing civilians as ethical.
- You can describe apartheid as ethical.
- You can describe violating Geneva Conventions as ethical.
- You can describe violating tens of UN resolutions as ethical.
- You can describe violating world court orders as ethical.
- You can describe collective punishment as ethical.
- You can describe violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as ethical.
- You can describe besieging 1.5 million people for 3 years as ethical.
…
…
…
…
This list can go for many more lines.
Since the answer to all the above is no, the answer to your question would also be a clear NO.
References :
December 25th, 2009 at 2:44 am
Tom, if you’re going to say that you’re dealing with facts, please try to have them correct. In the late 1800s, Palestine was part of the Turkish Empire. Britain did not "colonize" Palestine, it was given conservatorship of the region by the League of Nations after The Great War. It was never a colony.
References :
December 25th, 2009 at 3:30 am
Oy Gevalt. I got about halfway through your Wall of Text before it dawned on me—"Is it ethical to malrepresent a country’s history for one’s own political agenda the way you do to Israel?"
There is too much idiocy in your post to respond to, and I am feeling lazy today.
I will just cast my support for The Arcs have Light.
Peace
References :
December 25th, 2009 at 4:01 am
Have mercy! That’s a book you wrote up there, and I really don’t see a question. It looks like you have your mind made up already, and nothing anyone says will change it, so…… Have a nice day!
References :
December 25th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Er, hello, reality calling?
Jews are the only group who have lived in the region for the past 3700 yrs – continuously.
Up until 1964, the very term ‘palestinian’ referred TO the Palestinian *Jews*.
**The Palestinian Post – newspaper staffed entirely by Jews. Became the Jerusalem Post
**Palestine Philharmonic Orchestra
- again, entirely Jewish!
** Palestine Brigade, fought with the Allies
-100% JEWISH
Jews have more right to Israel, than Brits do to Britain, or the French do to France, or Americans do to USA.
I note you don’t condemn how JORDAN was established…? Yet Jordan takes up 80% of what WAS Palestine, and was established PRECISELY the same way AS Israel.
You are woefully ignorant and alas making an utter fool of yourself. Get the facts before you post again.
HATEM:
LOL LOL – wow, what a strange type of ‘ethnic cleansing’, given that there are NOW MORE Palestinian Arabs than in 1948!
Read the HAMAS Charter: Hamas has the same aims as AL QUEDA:
HAMAS CHARTER:
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html
WHY NO CONDEMNATION OF EGYPTIAN BLOCKAGE OF GAZA?
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-dont-we-hear-about-egyptian.html
Read this too, while you’re at it:
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-12-11T07%3A29%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=20
References :
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com
http://www.arabsforisrael.com
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com
December 25th, 2009 at 5:35 am
The British had wrestled Palestine away from the Ottoman Turks in 1917, and they occupied Palestine until 1947, and shortly thereafter, the United Nations voted to divide western Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab areas. The Jews accepted this plan, and the Arabs rejected it. Not only did they reject the UN partition plan, but 7 Arab nations decided to attack the fledgeling Jewish microstate with public proclamations of Jewish extermination. It was surrounding these events that the Palestinian Arab refugee problem was born:
"According to official records of the League of Nations and Arab census figure 539,000 Arabs left Israel at the urging of 7 converging Arab armies so that they would not be in the way of their attack. They promised the fleeing Arabs they would return and move into the Jews’ houses after the anticipated successful annihilation of the Jews.
"We know that 850,000 Jews were ejected from the Arab countries where they had lived for hundreds of years. This included successful people whose property and assets, including community assets were immediately confiscated. 750,000 penniless Jews from Arab countries fled to Israel.
"This was a virtual exchange of population. The Jewish refugees were immediately accepted by the new State of Israel. They were provided with shelter (albeit temporary tents) food and clothing.
"The Arab refugees who had migrated to various Arab nations were not similarly well received. They were regarded not as Arab brothers but as unwelcome migrants who were not to be trusted. Squalid refugee camps were set up as showpieces to induce the West’s sympathy and kept that way. The UN through UNRWA (UN Relief Agency) provided assistance to the camps when the host country could not or would not. These camps became a training ground for terrorist youth to be targeted at Israel. The host country, like Syria, would provide training, weapons and explosives, but refused to absorb the Arab refugees as equal citizens. Keeping them in misery made them valuable and irreplaceable as angry front line terrorists attacking Israel as proxies for the Arab armies who lost to the Jews on the field of battle in declared wars. The Twin Pillars supporting Arab Muslim society are "Pride and Shame". Losing to the Jews on the battlefield time and again in 6 wars shattered the self perception of the Macho Man.
- Emanuel A. Winston, Middle East analyst & commentator
< http://www.peacefaq.com/refugees.html >
Israel has endured constant hostility from Arab neighbors who hate Jews. It is probable that peace will not come to the Middle East until Arab states cease their anti-Semitism, demand Palestinian’s to end their terrorist acts, and accept Israel as a sovereign nation with the right to exist peacefully.
References :