@newtboy
If the locals were already doing their utmost legally to halt the invasion in the 30's, it was clear the immigrants were not welcome...except by the 11%
Jews weren't the only ones relocating to Palestine you know, Arab population growth was being driven up as well. For some strange reason a lot of people were relocating en mass in between WW1 and WW2. Seems disproportionate to me to be the concerned exclusively with the Jewish ones. Doubly so given within that time frame they undoubtedly had better reasons for concern.

My Texas-California comparison stands...
Except for the holocaust part.

Here's the example you want. During the Rwandan genocide, let's pretend we saw a mass exodus of Africans seeking refuge in America. As the genocide in Rwanda was being sifted through, let's pretend that White America decided to ban all land sales to black people, and started refusing to conduct any business with black people. Let's pretend white folks even got up in arms and started committing a few massacres of Black towns and Black people did the same back in defense and retaliation. Now, while all this fighting takes place lets see it escalate to an all out war, and the black population declares independence and accepts a UN mandated solution where they keep Missippi, Alabama and Florida or something. The day after that however, America and NATO announce a joint declaration of war and the president of the USA declares that he's going to drive the Africans into the sea. Now you've got a made in America analogy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
I admit I was wrong about the 8% figure, I got the columns crossed, recalculating, it was about 11% in 22, 17% in 31, and 32% in 47. That still sounds like a pretty huge influx by my standards, almost tripling the per capita population in 25 years (and more than tripling the actual population) compared to others in the region, mostly by imigration.

You said they stood along side the Nazis " upon the UN mandating a two state solution to the whole mess" (I think you've edited what you originally stated, that they then stood along side the Nazis, and clarified what you meant, that the leaders that turned down the 47 proposal had stood with the Nazis in the past, which I don't disagree with...too bad I erased the quotation for space). The U.N. mandated a two state solution in 74...in 47, they 'mandated' a 3 state solution that took massive territories from the Palestinians and handed it to Jewish immigrants, it turns out the Palestinians should have accepted because they've lost far more since then, but it sounded terrible at the time.

What points? Are these universal points? Can I redeem them for trips to the store by the universe...it owes me some milk.

In 48, when the illegal immigrants became land thieving invaders, the U.N.partition plan was to split the territory 3 ways, and for the U.N. to control Jerusalem. It would be like the U.N. agreeing today with illegal Mexicans in Texas and California that the southern 1/2 of all border states was now a new country because they are now a majority in many areas, with the U.N. taking control of the LA basin....we might say "no thanks" like the Palestinians did...at least I hope so.

The 37 British plan for Partition came before 47.
WIKI-The first proposal for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in the British Mandate of Palestine was made in the Peel Commission report of 1937, with the Mandate continuing to cover only a small area containing Jerusalem. The recommended partition proposal was rejected by the Arab community of Palestine,[8][9] and was accepted by most of the Jewish leadership.

You said they stood with the Nazis when the two state solution was proposed...which was actually 74, but I'll give you leeway and say you meant 47, which is still ridiculous, the Nazis were long gone in 47.

They didn't seize it as payback for the holocaust, but many allies went along, seemingly out of guilt for not stopping it sooner (a valid complaint about the US, but no reason to help take Palestinian territory and hand it away).

Yes, there was Jewish hatred in Europe before the Nazis, that's one reason why they were able to grab so much power, they had a ready made scape goat. Your point?

No, not every Jew in Palestine was a Zionist, but enough of the 11% were that they tripled their presence in 25 years....and far more importantly, today it's near 100%, and they are violent, expansionist, ruthlessly inhuman, and zealous.

I refuse to call it a civil war when one side was made nearly completely of immigrants....that's called an invasion.

I do agree, the inability to assimilate is not 100% the immigrants fault, but it is 100% their responsibility. Refugees, that are not expected to stay, so not expected to assimilate, are kept in camps. These people did not go to camps, so they were, at best, illegal immigrants, and many were coming with the goal of stealing inhabited territory for their own, which makes them invaders. The VAST majority of them came after the war ended, so could not be war refugees. During the war, Jews had an incredibly hard time traveling in Europe.

The few actual refugees there that the axis created were absorbable by the Palestinians. It's their multitudinous militant expansionist friends that continue to immigrate there to this day that are the problem, IMO. I'll continue to call them violent invaders, you've said nothing to convince me otherwise.

@newtboy,

Why do you insist on trying to contort things?

The stats I found showed 8% in mid 1930's....Before the war.
Provide a source then, I did and it's over 16% as of 1931.

You said the Palestinians stood alongside the Nazis....in 47?....so.....what Nazis?
I observed that the Arab revolt between 1936 and 1939 was led by the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. Who later found himself in Germany talking with Hitler and advocating a 'solution' for Palestine ala Italy and Germany. I didn't present an opinion for you to disagree with. I presented a statement of fact which stands regardless of whether you refuse to believe in it or not.

As for partition, stop trying to win points or something, it's inescapable that the partition agreement that the Jewish Palestinians accepted when they declared independence in 1948 was the 1947 UN Partition Plan, on account of the other partition agreements having not yet come into existence yet and all.

I didn't say the tensions didn't begin when Nazis existed, I said they were gone when the events you describe happened.
I think that was addressed earlier what with Arab uprising in the 30s, and the conflict between Arab and Jewish Palestinians continuing on from then all the way till it hit an all out civil war.

Nothing I'm saying here has to justify, forgive or declare Israel a saint and Arabs the sinners. I AM however pointing out some very basic facts that refute the argument that Jewish invaders just came in from Europe and seized Palestine from the Arabs as payback for the holocaust. That simply was not what happened.

Jews were unwelcome and persecuted in Europe long before WW2. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in 1925, and he wasn't exactly putting pen to brand new ideas nobody had been circulating in Europe already. The Zionists for their part were also busy and in action long before WW2, in no small part for reasons above. The Zionists were absolutely looking to take back 'their' homeland and by invasion if need be. That doesn't mean every Jew in Palestine was a Zionist anymore than the above makes every European and Arab nazi sympathizers. The reality was a lot more muddled and complex.

In the end, the big events driving the Arab-Jewish civil war in Palestine was as you say, an inability of the immigrants to live together with the natives. So on that front we are well agreed. You seem content to place 100% of the blame on the immigrants(which I must insist we refer to as refugees given they are largely European Jews between 1940-1947). I disagree. I believe I've given adequate evidence to demonstrate that the inability to live together was as much to blame on the Arab Palestinians as it was on the Jewish. If we want to blame anyone in the whole mess, the strongest blame still lies with the Axis powers for creating the refugees in the first place.

I've heard this revisionist history BS so many times now I just can't stand it anymore. There was no magical 'gifting' of Palestinian land to invading European Jews. That's a completely baseless self justification for Middle Eastern anti-jewish hate mongering.

Jewish people were a significant percentage of the population in Palestine long before the Nazi's and their ilk started making Europe look unpleasant. They were Palestinians themselves, not invaders. Both Arab and Jewish Palestinians lived side by side in Palestine for a long, long time before the 1940s. Clearly, come the 1940's there was a large influx of Jewish people from Europe. Calling them 'invaders' versus refugees though seems an easy call given the holocaust and Nazi occupation of the whole of Europe. Still, you insist on calling them invaders. I don't have words for how disgusting that is.

So, in the mid 1940's we have a Palestine loaded with Jewish and Arab Palestinians, plus a good number of Jewish refugees. The tensions between those groups escalates into a full on civil war. Not an invasion, but a civil war between Jewish and Arab palestinians where the only group remotely fitting the 'invader' role are holocaust survivor refugees now in a country were there is AGAIN a war against them on the basis of being Jews. I'm not sure I think they are as callously the aggressor. What is more, upon the UN mandating a two state solution to the whole mess, the Jewish Palestinians immediately accepted. The Arab Palestinians though appealed to the Arab league, and many of the leaders within it that stood alongside the Nazi's pontificating solutions to 'the problem'. So now a fledgling independent Jewish state spent it's first day receiving a join declaration of war upon it by all it's neighbouring countries that each out numbered it grossly. I again can't but see the Israeli fighting as defensive. In fact, I must insist it was an existential fight that, should they have lost, would have us discussing the second and even worse holocaust of the European Jews that fled to Palestine.

But I know it's popular today among pseudo intellectual circles to just declare Israel an invasion and occupation by a foreign army of vastly militarily superior super jews. It's a fantasy though, and it's one that was scripted up by hateful racists to justify their hatred. None of that says anything about white-washing Israeli policies in the decades following. If you want to call them invaders from the start though you are speaking a truly horrific set of lies.

k, I'm going Wednesday Addams on yall, so fair warning if you can't stomach the grotesque. It's just my sense of humor is very dark. This is one of the few times I'll do you a favor by breaking the fourth wall of my videosift persona. Mainly because I enjoyed this video and the concept is really neat; but, I can't help my brain from going where it goes in its logical conclusions. It's tldr so you'll skip it anyway. Doesn't matter to me, first and foremost, I post for me, not you -- though I acknowledge it is public and therefore for the public's consumption, it is so purely for reasons of science:

Is there a section at the Empathy Museum for empathizing with EMT drivers? Seeing dead and dying bodies in every conceivable way on a daily basis. How do you try on those shoes?

A friend of mine who was a technician for many years told me he witnessed dozens of different forms of decapitation and loads of ways a person can lose one or more or all of their limbs; or, how about this one -- a man who squatted over a plunger he had suctioned to the bottom of a tub because he was too much of a prude to buy a dildo, slipped in the tub while he was pleasuring himself anally...

It tore up through his bowels and punctured out of his abdomen. He was still alive but out cold from the shock while his bowels flooded his insides; dead not long after his wife had made the call.

Listening to an EMT driver discuss their years of experience is one of the best ways to empathize with the human condition.

Or here's another good one: Go work in a nursing home and learn what being old and dying is like.

But cool, I get to wear oversized women's shoes... wait, I already do that. Here, empathize with me: wear pumps and stockings for an hour, then chuck tailors and socks for two hours, then pumps, then chuck tailors, then pumps, then chuck tailors.

I'm gonna open myself a true empathy museum in collaboration with the Holocaust Museum. Could you imagine if the Holocaust Museum had you wear the shoes of dead Jews? Would anyone take that seriously? I seriously doubt it.

Aside from alternating between gender-based shoes, my empathy museum will also allow you to interact with people who have low functioning autism and have a discussion with a man who has severe brain damage because his dad was involved in organized crime and the price of not paying a debt on time was that his family got murdered before his very eyes. Lucky for him, only brain damage. Sole survivor. Let him regale you with tales of woes made entirely of spitting sounds and aimless staring.

Empathy's a crazy thing. Makes you want to crawl inside a hole sometimes. But if you emerge sane and ready to TRULY empathize by doing a goddamn thing about it -- and not just proclaim your civil rights and be angry at the injustices of the world and how unfair your lot or the lot of other pitiful humans are -- maybe you'll have what it takes to gain an iota of true humanity. That's what my empathy museum is all about.

Not that I'm against this form of chic empathy. I quite enjoy art installations.

There is nothing inherently immoral about creating weapons. The problem lies in what they are used for. Just like the most basic of tools, a hammer can be used to build or to kill. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have invented the hammer. The onus is on the person using it.

In either case, that has little to do with the factory farming holocaust.

What you did there is called an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy. You're saying vegans aren't morally perfect, so they have no place to tell us about morality. It's a derailment of the actual issue just like how you've previously used an appeal to nature, and an appeal history as well.

After that most people try the appeal to futility. And failing that they'll say something completely illogical such as "bacon tho" just to "win" the conversation, because it's not possible argue with something that unreasonable.

Like I mentioned in one of the other comments, I've said all of this myself in the past, I 100% believed it in the past, but eventually coming to the logical conclusion that I was wrong. I only had to accept that all of the animal exploitation I contributed to in the past was wrong, and decide that I no longer want to be apart of it. I can't take back the stuff I did, but to continue doing so knowing fully the extent of the consequences would be the poorer choice.

You don't need to morally perfect in order to solve a very obvious problem. As with war as well, it's often it's about choosing the less bad option, after weighing in all consequences.

"The mob will always vote to take stuff from the minority."

Oh for fuck's sake... I have no words...

I guess he's right, the 1% having to pay any tax at all really is EXACTLY like the Holocaust.

</sarcasm>

"You know how much you love, respect and want to protect every dog and cat in the world? You know how much your heart breaks when you see a picture of a dog in a shelter who is going to be killed? You know how you feel when you see photos of piles of dead dogs and cats who are going to be used for fur? You know how enraged you get when you see a photo of a dog or cat who has been beaten to death? That’s how vegans feel about all animals. Every animal who is exploited and murdered for food, clothing, entertainment and “research.” We don’t distinguish between dogs and cats and other animals. If you allowed yourself to feel the deep suffering that billions of animals endure for your pleasure, you’d be vegan, too. And you might understand why vegans work so hard to end the animal holocaust." —Gary Smith

Saves deer, then goes home to eat a lamb....


Edit: Saving the deer is a really nice thing to do, and it shows that most people genuinely care for animals, but are completely unaware that they're causing an animal holocaust at the dinner table. Each time they eat, they've killed by proxy a animal just as innocent as that deer. Especially when it comes to lamb and veal, they are generally only months old.

Just goes to show, out of sight, out of mind I guess.

The one's in the 40's that were in line behind the last person allowed in each year based on the numbers they allow in per country were too late. Yes.
I think most Jews that illegally immigrated to Palestine in the 30's didn't come from Germany.
Yes. Those that fled in the 30's were only fleeing fear, not actual attack. Those that fled in the late 30's and 40's were mostly fleeing actual attack. It is somewhat shameful that we didn't recognize what was happening and let more in, but that has little to do with Israel.
Before the massive illegal immigration of the 30's, Arab and Jewish Palestinians treated each other equally well. After the influx of millions of Jews, illegally, against protest by the non Jewish populations, there were problems created by both sides, but the Jewish side was the invader side, the Palestinian side was the 'native' side. And, as you say, the Invading Jewish Palestinians were the minority, but took all the power in the area, by force. They had far more money than the Palestinian side, and more access to weapons, and took advantage of those advantages.
Again, Holocaust survivors are only owed something from GERMANY. The Palestinians did NOTHING to them, yet they are the one's who've had their land and autonomy taken, and have been forced to live in a walled off refugee camp for decades by the invaders.
Yes, the surrounding countries banded together because they saw the invaders would continue to invade and expand into their territory, they were 100% right. Sadly, the US supported Israel and made it a one sided fight in favor of the invaders.
The Nazis were not fighting invaders, they were invaders, fighting a 'race' (more than one really) at home and fighting an expansionist war of aggression...sounds familliar.
Not taking up arms and invading would have seen Jews still alive and well in the area, but not in absolute control, not expanding their control, and not in such numbers. They had been there for centuries. Only when the millions more invaded and seized power to create an exclusionary religious state and displace and subjugate the locals was there a problem.

The Jews were not fleeing anything but fear in the 30s...or came too late and missed the cutoff.

So, the Jews that fled in the 30s weren't legitimately fleeing anything but fear, and the Jews that fled after the 30s weren't legitimate because they waited until too late. Gotcha.

Perhaps you came closer to summarizing your position earlier:
Perhaps if those Jews were still in Europe fighting against the Nazis, they wouldn't have made it out of Germany.

Historically, there is a zero percent chance that more Jewish fighters in Europe could've kept the Nazi's from making it out of Germany. Worse, the ambiguity of your sentence also suggests that maybe your suggesting that if the Jews had stayed in Europe fighting, it was them that wouldn't have made it out of Germany, which would be quite correct.

You are making it very difficult to interpret your view in any kind of positive light. Despite the fact that one of the greatest genocides in history was about to hit them and their children, you insist that Jews fleeing in 30s were fleeing "nothing but fear". More over, you seem adamant in defending the notion that as the holocaust survivors landed in Palestine and were being looked after by existing Jewish Palestinians, it is they and they alone that were the aggressors in Palestine. It is well established history that BOTH Arab and Jewish Palestinians treated each other equally poorly through the 30s and 40s. More over, the Jewish Palestinians remained the minority. I'm inclined to lend a bit of understanding to an aggressive response from holocaust survivors yet again facing repression and saying NO! Doubly so when upon accepting a 2 state solution, all the surrounding nations of the middle east jointly declared war upon them with the declared intent of driving the Jews into the sea. It was only 2 years prior that the whole of Europe was controlled by Nazis trying to do the same thing. What can be realistically expected of the Jewish refugees in Palestine? Fighting kept them alive, in Palestine and I find it hard to fathom an alternate history were laying down arms would've seen any Jews still alive in the area,

I can't figure out whether I hope you view the Middle Eastern(and most recently Syrian) refugees coming into Europe as 'invaders' too or not.

It really stretches the imagination to fail to at least give some degree of legitimacy to Jewish flight from Europe in the 30s and 40s. Immigration to anywhere was strictly illegal to them, including over here in Canada and America too.

You see Jewish invaders from Europe taking over Palestine where I see refugees fleeing a legitimate threat to their lives. The holocaust seems to have proven out the fears of European Jews that left in the 30s, no?

You also completely ignore the actual situation on the ground in Palestine between Jewish and Arab Palestinians. You make it sound like peace loving, tree hugging Arabs stepped back and watched as Jewish invaders stripped them of their land at gun point out of malice. Truth is, neither Jewish nor Arab Palestinian populations were treating each other particularly well by the 1930s. The Arab population was every bit as racist, unfair and violent to the Jewish Palestinians as the other way around.

Ben Carson thinks the Jews should have had guns, then the Holocaust would never had happened.